Scriven Bros v Hindley - 1913 3 KB 564

Material Facts:

The complainants ordered an auctioneer to sell bales of hemp and tow. Although tow is commercially inferior to hemp, the tow and hemp were similarly packaged. The defendant, believing the bales to be hemp, bid for two bales. When it was later discovered by the defendant that one of the bales was tow, the defendant refused to make payment and the complainant sued for the price.

Issue:

Whether there was a binding contract between the two parties.

Holding:

That there was no contract.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court ruled that there was no agreement between the parties hence no contract. The complainant had not made the hemp and tow samples clear enough for the identification of the defendant. The complainant’s conduct had contributed to the defendant’s mistake.