Hartog v Colin & Shields, [1939] 3 All ER 566

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

James, a wholesale supplier of electronic devices, posted an online offer to sell a batch of fifty newly released cameras. Due to a typographical error, the advertised price was only five percent of the standard market cost. Mary, who frequently deals in camera equipment, immediately recognized this unusually low pricing. Aware that the market rate was significantly higher, she swiftly placed an order to purchase the batch at the mistaken price. James discovered the error and refused to complete the sale, prompting Mary to assert that a binding contract existed.


Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the enforceability of the contract in light of unilateral mistake principles?

Introduction

Unilateral mistake in contract law happens when one party misinterprets a key part of the agreement, and the other party knows or should know of this error. The ruling in Hartog v Colin & Shields deals with cases where pricing errors occur. This case decided that if an offeree identifies a pricing mistake in the offer, the contract may not be valid. Necessary conditions for this rule are a definite error in the offer and the offeree’s knowledge of it. The judgment influences how contracts are made when price is a central term.

The Facts of Hartog v Colin & Shields

The defendants, Colin & Shields, sold animal hides and intended to sell hare skins to the plaintiff, Hartog, at a set price per skin. However, a mistake in their written offer listed the price per pound instead, which was far lower because of the skins’ weight. Hartog, knowing standard trade practices and the unexpected price difference, argued he had accepted the offer. The defendants rejected the incorrect price, prompting Hartog to sue for breach of contract.

The Court's Decision

Justice Singleton found no valid contract existed. He decided Hartog was aware the defendants had made a pricing error. The judge highlighted that earlier talks and trade customs indicated the intended price was per skin, not per pound. Hartog’s attempt to accept the offer, despite knowing the mistake, was seen as trying to take advantage of a clear error.

The Rule on Known Errors

The central question in Hartog v Colin & Shields is handling known errors. This arises when an offeree, recognizing a mistake in the offer, seeks to gain from it by accepting terms they know are wrong. Such conduct is deemed unjust and stops a valid contract from forming.

Comparing Hartog to Other Mistake Cases

Hartog v Colin & Shields is unlike cases where errors relate to confusion about the agreement’s subject or core terms. The difference lies in the offeree’s definite knowledge of the mistake. In Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, for instance, a buyer mistakenly believed he was buying old oats, but the seller had no indication of this. The contract was upheld. Unlike Hartog, the offeree’s awareness of the error was not a factor.

Effects and Applications of Hartog

The Hartog rule safeguards parties who make accidental pricing errors in their offers. It stops others from gaining unfairly from such mistakes. The case has been referenced in later decisions dealing with comparable issues, confirming its place in modern contract law. For example, in Centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co Ltd [1983] Com LR 158, the court restated the significance of the offeree’s knowledge of an error.

Minimizing Risks of Unilateral Mistakes

Businesses can lower the risk of unilateral mistakes by applying thorough reviews when drafting offers. Direct communication with customers and written checks of key terms, like pricing, help prevent conflicts. Standard contracts and exact terms also make each party’s obligations clear.

Conclusion

Hartog v Colin & Shields sets out a central rule in contract law for unilateral mistakes involving pricing errors. The case shows the need for fairness in negotiations and blocks parties from taking advantage of known errors. The judgment protects offerors and explains when agreements are void due to unilateral mistakes. Later cases such as Centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co Ltd support Hartog’s principles, stressing the offeree’s knowledge as decisive. This case reminds businesses and individuals to check terms thoroughly during talks to avoid disputes from unilateral errors.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal