The plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, ordered goods of W and R, telling them the purpose for which they were wanted. Before the order was given the plaintiff asked W and R for a list of prices, and, having obtained it, shewed it to the defendant, who, seeing that the price was such that the order could not possibly have been understood, asked the plaintiff if he thought W and R knew what was wanted ; whereupon the plaintiff said, ‘Oh yes. If anything is wrong, of course you will see me all right.’ To which the defendant answered, ‘Yes, I will bear you harmless.’ In consequence of some misunderstanding, arising in part probably from a verbal inaccuracy in the letters conveying the order, the goods supplied were useless to the defendant, and were returned to the sellers, who (the intrinsic value of the goods being only about 3l) expended in labour about 42l to make them correspond with the intention of the defendant, but, in so doing, reduced their substance so as to render them useless for his purpose. – The defendant, after considerable delay, persisting in his refusal to take the goods, W and R sued the plaintiff, and he (as the jury found, with the implied authority of the defendant) compromised the action by the payment to them of 22l 10s, and afterwards brought an action for money paid against the defendant, to recover that sum : Held, by Wilde, CJ Maule, J, and Talfourd, J, that the action lay. Held, by Cresswell, J., that the plaintiff should have defended the action brought against him by W. and R., and that there was no implied authority from the defendant to compromise it.
Judges:
Wilde CJ, Maule J
Citations:
[1850] EngR 620, (1850) 9 CB 701, (1850) 137 ER 1067
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Contract
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.297967
