A contract referred to cotton ‘to arrive ex Peerless from Bombay’. Two ships called the Peerless sailed from Bombay, one in October and one in December. The court accepted that the defendants meant the October vessel and the plaintiff the December vessel.
Held: There was no contract – because the offer and acceptance, although verbally identical, could objectively refer to different ships of the same name, ‘there was no consensus ad idem, and therefore no binding contract’. An agreement is void for mutual mistake if the agreement cannot be reasonably understood in the sense understood by either party – despite the apparent agreement, no offer was accepted. Parol evidence could be given for the purpose of showing that the plaintiff meant one ‘Peerless’ and the defendant the other.
Citations:
[1864] EWHC Exch J19, (1864) 2 H and C 906, [1864] EngR 150, (1864) 159 ER 375
Links:
Contract
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248827