Boulton v Jones: CEC 25 Nov 1857

Supply contract not assignable without consent

The defendant sent a written order for goods to a shop owned by Brocklehurst and which was addressed to him by name. Unknown to the defendant, Brocklehurst had earlier that day sold and transferred his business to Boulton. Boulton fulfilled the order and delivered the goods to the defendant without notifying him that he had taken over the business. The defendant accepted the goods and consumed them in the belief that they had been supplied by Brocklehurst. When he received Boulton’s invoice he refused to pay it, claiming that he had intended to deal with Brocklehurst personally, since he had dealt with him previously and had a set-off on which he had intended to rely.
Held: The defendant was not liable for the price. There was no contract.
Pollock CB said: ‘Now the rule of law is clear, that if you propose to make a contract with A, then B cannot substitute himself for A without your consent and to your disadvantage, securing to himself all the benefit of the contract.’
Bramwell B said: ‘I do not lay it down that because a contract was made in one person’s name another person cannot sue upon it, except in cases of agency. But when any one makes a contract in which the personality, so to speak, of the particular party contracted with is important, for any reason, whether because it is to write a book or paint a picture, or do any work of personal skill, or whether because there is a set-off due from that party, no one else is at liberty to step in and maintain that he is the party contracted with, that he has written the book or painted the picture, or supplied the goods; and that he is entitled to sue, although, had the party really contracted with sued, the defendant would have had the benefit of his personal skill, or of a set-off due from him.’
Channell B: ‘The plaintiff is clearly not in a situation to sustain this action, for there was no contract between himself and the defendant. The case is not one of principal and agent; it was a contract made with B, who had transactions with the defendant and owed him money, and upon which A seeks to sue.’
Martin B said: ‘Where the facts prove that the defendant never meant to contract with A alone, B can never force a contract upon him; he has dealt with A, and a contract with no one else can be set up against him.’

Judges:

Pollock CB, Martin B, Bramwell B, Channell B

Citations:

(1857) 2 H and N 564, [1857] EngR 935, (1857) 157 ER 232

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShogun Finance Limited v Hudson HL 19-Nov-2003
Thief acquired no title and could not sell
A purchaser used a stolen driving licence to obtain credit for and purchase a car. He then purported to sell it to the respondent, and then disappeared. The finance company sought return of the car.
Held: (Lords Nicholls and Millett . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.188455