Question

The defendants, Colin & Shields, were London hide merchants. Mr Louis-LevieHartog was a Dutch furrier, living in Brussels. Colin & Shields discussed selling MrHartog 30,000 Argentinian hare skins at “10d per skin” (which would have come to £1,250). When they put the final offer in writing Colin & Shields mistakenly wrote “30,000 skins @ 10d per lb”. As hare skins weigh around 5oz, this was a third of the price previously discussed and orally agreed upon.

MrHartog tried to hold them to this very good offer. He claimed loss of profit, or, in the alternative, the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of the breach. Colin & Shields pleaded that their offer was by mistake wrongly expressed. They alleged that they had intended to offer the goods sold at certain prices per piece, and not at those prices per pound, as their offer was expressed. They argued MrHartog was well aware of this mistake on their part, and fraudulently accepted an offer which he well knew that the defendants had never intended to make1. In the circumstances, the defendants denied that any binding contract was entered into, and, if there was, counterclaimed for its rescission.

Judgment

The judge found in Colin & Shields’ favour on the grounds that the plaintiff must have realized the defendants’ error, which, as it concerned a term of the contract, rendered the contract void. Singleton J read the following judgment.

“ In this case, the plaintiff, a Belgian subject, claims damages against the defendants because he says they broke a contract into which they entered with him for the sale of Argentine hare skins. The defendants' answer to that claim is:

"There really was no contract, because you knew that the document which went forward to you, in the form of an offer, contained a material mistake. You realized that, and you sought to take advantage of it."

Counsel for the defendants took upon himself the onus of satisfying me that the plaintiff knew that there was a mistake and sought to take advantage of that mistake. In other words, realising that there was a mistake, the plaintiff did that which James LJ, in Tamplin v James, at p 221, described as "snapping up the offer." It is important, I think, to realise that in the verbal negotiations which took place in this country, and in all the discussions there had ever been, the prices of Argentine hare skins had been discussed per piece, and later, when correspondence took place, the matter was always discussed at the price per piece, and never at a price per pound2. Those witnesses who were called on behalf of the plaintiff have had comparatively little experience of dealing in Argentine hare skins. Even the expert witness who was called had had very little. I am satisfied that it was a mistake on the part of the defendants or their servants which caused the offer to go forward in that way, and I am satisfied that anyone with any knowledge of the trade must have realized that there was a mistake. I find it difficult to understand why, when MrCaytan bought in this way at 11d per lb, he could not tell me what the total purchase price was, and I cannot help thinking that there was an arrangement of some sort, amounting rather to a division of the spoil. That is the view I formed, having heard the witnesses.

This case has become a highly relevant precedent in the modern context of e-shopping on the internet, when online retailers sometimes get the published price wrong and receive hundreds of online orders (automatically accepted) before they discover their error 3- e.g. advertising a £299 television on the website for £2.99. Retailers can avoid having to supply at the mistakenly low price if the court finds that the would-be purchasers must have known that the advertised price was clearly a mistake.

Read the above Case carefully and answer the following questions-

Q.NO.- 1 What was the allegations of Colin & Shield against Mr. Hartog?

Q.NO.- 2 Is this an agreement or a valid contract ? Justify your answers ?

Q.NO.- 3 What is the significance of this case in the modern e-shopping context?

Answer 1

Q.No.1

The allegations of Colin & Shield against Mr Hartog:

Colin & Shield discussed verbally to sell 30,000 Argentinians hare skins to Mr Hartog, at the price of 10d/skin, which will total 1250 pounds. While quoting the offer to Mr Hartog, they mistakenly wrote 30,000 skins @ 10d per lb, instead of 10d per skin, thereby making a huge difference of 1/3rd the price it should have been. The defendents alleged that anyone who is well experienced in the field will immediately come to know the clerical mistake and always hare are sold per piece and not as lb. Colin & Shield defended that Mr Hartog, the plaintiff, was fully aware of the mistake and took advantage of it and tried to pressurize to supply hare skins as per the quote, thereby defrauding the defendents.

Q.No.2 :

There was no valid agreement or contract, but it was a quote in writing which is different and not legally binding. A written agreement or contract, involves signatures of both parties and signatures of witnesses, in whose presence the written agreement is supposed to be agreed and signed after mutual consent. But, in this case, there is no signed or written agreement. The two parties discussed verbally and after agreeing to the rates and other things, Colin & Shield, sent them a written quote, which is just a quotation and always there is a clause of E&OE, which means that clerical mistakes must be considered as human error in the quote.

Q.No.3 :

In modern e -shopping era, there could be several such mistakes which could be typographic errors and must be considered. If the case is not considered as a mistake done by Colin & Shield or their servant/employee in making the quote, this could lead to a wrong example in e-business era where such human errors are possible and could lead to huge losses to the supplying companies (defendents) and can create lot of confusion among the supplying companies. Therefore, defendents, Colin & Shield, must be given a fair legal justice by supplying the Argentinian hare skins at the rightful prices of 10d per piece instead of 10d per lb. Plaintiff, Mr Hartog was fully aware that the prices quoted by Colin & Shield were wrong and they (Plaintiff) must admit that they intentionally tried to pressurize them (defendants) to supply hares at the quoted prices, and instead, must accept the supplies at the rightful prices of 10d/piece.