Welcome

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

ResourcesHartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566

Facts

  • The defendants, Colin & Shields, intended to sell hare skins to the plaintiff, Hartog, at a price per skin.
  • Due to a mistake, their written offer stated the price per pound, resulting in a significantly lower total price since the skins weighed less.
  • Hartog, being familiar with standard trade practice and the unusual price difference, purported to accept the offer.
  • The defendants rejected performance at the incorrect price, leading Hartog to sue for breach of contract.

Issues

  1. Whether a valid contract exists when the offeree knows or should know that an offer contains a unilateral pricing mistake.
  2. Whether the offeree’s acceptance of an offer with a known error enables him to enforce the contract.

Decision

  • The court held that no valid contract existed between Hartog and Colin & Shields.
  • Justice Singleton found that Hartog was aware of the defendants’ pricing mistake.
  • It was determined that prior negotiations and trade customs evidenced the intended price per skin, not per pound.
  • Hartog’s attempt to accept the erroneous offer was seen as an effort to take advantage of a clear and known mistake.
  • Where the offeree knows or ought to know of a unilateral error in the offer, particularly as to a fundamental term such as price, no binding contract arises.
  • Acceptance of terms that the offeree knows the offeror did not intend does not lead to contract formation.
  • The rule protects offerors against unfair exploitation of mistakes and affirms the requirement for genuine agreement on contractual terms.
  • Later cases, such as Centrovincial Estates plc v Merchant Investors Assurance Co Ltd [1983] Com LR 158, have affirmed the importance of the offeree’s knowledge of a mistake.

Conclusion

Hartog v Colin & Shields established that if an offeree knowingly accepts an offer containing a unilateral error, particularly regarding price, no valid contract is formed. The case emphasizes fairness in contract negotiations and prevents parties from enforcing agreements arising from known mistakes.

Assistant

How can I help you?
Expliquer en français
Explicar en español
Объяснить на русском
شرح بالعربية
用中文解释
हिंदी में समझाएं
Give me a quick summary
Break this down step by step
What are the key points?
Study companion mode
Homework helper mode
Loyal friend mode
Academic mentor mode
Expliquer en français
Explicar en español
Объяснить на русском
شرح بالعربية
用中文解释
हिंदी में समझाएं
Give me a quick summary
Break this down step by step
What are the key points?
Study companion mode
Homework helper mode
Loyal friend mode
Academic mentor mode

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.