A boy was placed as apprentice with the plaintiff then an auctioneer, appraiser and corn-factor. The plaintiff abandoned the trade of corn-factor, and the boy left. The plaintiff claimed against his father.
Held: The action for the apprentice’s desertion failed. The abandonment of the trade of corn-master was a good answer to the claim on the apprenticeship deed.
Pollock CB spoke of the attempted construction of a contract ex post facto, saying: ‘It is remarkable that according to this rule the construction of the instrument may be varied by matter ex post facto’
Judges:
Pollock, C.B
Citations:
[1851] EngR 323, (1851) 6 Exch 424, (1851) 155 ER 609
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Wallis, Son, and Wells v Pratt and Haynes HL 5-May-1911
Exclusion Clause Limited
The appellants bought seed from the respondents as ‘common English sainfoin’ under the proviso that ‘sellers give no warranty, expressed or implied, as to growth, description, or any other matters.’ The seed turned out to be a different kind, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.296639