To a declaration for money lent and paid and commission the defendant pleaded for a defence on equitable grounds, that it was agreed between the plaintiffs and himself, on the following terms, viz., that he should consign certain rice to the plaintiffs’ firm at Buenos Ayres and Monte Video, for sale by the plaintiffs for him upon commission; that the plaintiffs should make certain advances against the rice and pay the expenses of the consignment; and that the plaintiffs should sell the rice, and satisfy out of the proceeds the said advances, expenses, and commission, and pay to the defendant the balance remaining out of such proceeds. The plea further stated that the rice was duly consigned to the plaintiffs under the agreement; that the claims in the declaration were the advances, expenses, and commission contemplated by the agreement; and that the plaintiffs were guilty of such negligence and improper conduct in the care of the rice and the management of the sale of it, that it fetched much less than it ought to have done, and insufficient to satisfy the advances, expenses, and commission, whereas it would, but for their negligence and misconduct, have realized sufficient, and much more than sufficient, to have fully paid and satisfied the same, and the deficiency arising upon the sale, which was the claim for which the action was brought, had therefore entirely arisen from the plaintiffs’ negligence, default, and misconduct.
Held, a bad plea.
Citations:
(1872) LR 8 CP 10, [1872] UKLawRpCP 63
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries HL 1977
Claims for freight charges are an exception to the general rule that all claims between parties must be resolved in one action. A claim for freight cannot be a claim ‘on the same grounds’ as a counter-claim for loss or damage arising out of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity, Contract
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.416756