The pursuer, a firm of timber merchants, sought repayment of sums overpaid for the carriage of timber.
Held: The House declined to introduce the English law of consideration into Scottish law.
Viscount Dunedin said: ‘if I offer my property to a certain person at a certain price, and go on to say: ‘This offer is to be open up to a certain date,’ I cannot withdraw that offer before that date, if the person to whom I made the offer chooses to accept it. It would be different in England, for in the case supposed there would be no consideration for the promise to keep the offer open. But what is the reason of this? It is because the offer as made contained two distinct promises: (1) to sell at a certain price, and (2) to keep the offer open. It seems to me that (2) is completely wanting in the present case. It is just as if a tradesman put up a notice: ‘My price for such-and-such goods during November will be so-and-so.’ That offer may at any time be converted into a contract by a person tendering the price for the goods, but there is no contract that the tradesman may not change his mind and withdraw his offer. Therefore, upon the simple question of contract, I think the argument for the respondents breaks down, and that in my mind disposes of the case.’
Viscount Dunedin, Lord Sumner
[1926] UKHL 1, (1926) 26 Ll L Rep 172, 1927 SC (HL) 32
Bailii
Scotland
Contract
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.279688
