The defendants, Colin & Shields, were London hidemerchants. Mr Louis-LevieHartog was a Dutch furrier, living inBrussels. Colin & Shields discussed selling MrHartog 30,000Argentinian hare skins at “10d per skin†(which would have come to£1,250). When they put the final offer in writing Colin &Shields mistakenly wrote “30,000 skins @ 10d per lbâ€. As hare skinsweigh around 5oz, this was a third of the price previouslydiscussed and orally agreed upon.
MrHartog tried to hold them to this very good offer. Heclaimed loss of profit, or, in the alternative, the differencebetween the contract price and the market price at the time of thebreach. Colin & Shields pleaded that their offer was by mistakewrongly expressed. They alleged that they had intended to offer thegoods sold at certain prices per piece, and not at those prices perpound, as their offer was expressed. They argued MrHartog was wellaware of this mistake on their part, and fraudulently accepted anoffer which he well knew that the defendants had never intended tomake1. In the circumstances, the defendants denied that any bindingcontract was entered into, and, if there was, counterclaimed forits rescission.
Judgment
The judge found in Colin & Shields’ favour on the groundsthat the plaintiff must have realized the defendants’ error, which,as it concerned a term of the contract, rendered the contract void.Singleton J read the following judgment.
“ In this case, the plaintiff, a Belgian subject, claimsdamages against the defendants because he says they broke acontract into which they entered with him for the sale of Argentinehare skins. The defendants' answer to that claim is:
\"There really was no contract, because you knew that thedocument which went forward to you, in the form of an offer,contained a material mistake. You realized that, and you sought totake advantage of it.\"
Counsel for the defendants took upon himself the onus ofsatisfying me that the plaintiff knew that there was a mistake andsought to take advantage of that mistake. In other words, realisingthat there was a mistake, the plaintiff did that which James LJ, inTamplin v James, at p 221, described as \"snapping up the offer.\" Itis important, I think, to realise that in the verbal negotiationswhich took place in this country, and in all the discussions therehad ever been, the prices of Argentine hare skins had beendiscussed per piece, and later, when correspondence took place, thematter was always discussed at the price per piece, and never at aprice per pound2. Those witnesses who were called on behalf of theplaintiff have had comparatively little experience of dealing inArgentine hare skins. Even the expert witness who was called hadhad very little. I am satisfied that it was a mistake on the partof the defendants or their servants which caused the offer to goforward in that way, and I am satisfied that anyone with anyknowledge of the trade must have realized that there was a mistake.I find it difficult to understand why, when MrCaytan bought in thisway at 11d per lb, he could not tell me what the total purchaseprice was, and I cannot help thinking that there was an arrangementof some sort, amounting rather to a division of the spoil. That isthe view I formed, having heard the witnesses.
This case has become a highly relevant precedent in the moderncontext of e-shopping on the internet, when online retailerssometimes get the published price wrong and receive hundreds ofonline orders (automatically accepted) before they discover theirerror 3- e.g. advertising a £299 television on the website for£2.99. Retailers can avoid having to supply at the mistakenly lowprice if the court finds that the would-be purchasers must haveknown that the advertised price was clearly a mistake.
Read the above Case carefully and answer the followingquestions-
Q.NO.- 1 What was the allegations of Colin & Shieldagainst Mr. Hartog?
Q.NO.- 2 Is this an agreement or a valid contract ? Justifyyour answers ?
Q.NO.- 3 What is the significance of this case in the moderne-shopping context?
