_ltd_v_william_h_pim_junior__co_ltd.gif)
Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd
Encyclopedia
Frederick E Rose Ltd v William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd [1953] 2 QB 450 is an English contract law
case concerning rectification
of contractual documents and interpreting contracts in English law
.
. So, Rose asked an Algerian
supplier, William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd, what feveroles were. Pim replied ‘feveroles means just horsebeans’. They contracted for the supply of ‘horsebeans’. Both believed horsebeans were feveroles. However, little did Rose know, there are three bean sizes, feves, feveroles and fevettes. Rose got feves delivered, which are larger and cheaper. The English firm had a claim for the wrong beans being delivered, and Rose in turn brought a claim against Pim. Rose sought to rectify the contract to put in the word ‘horsebean’.
held that because both parties were agreed on horsebeans, and the contract was not void for mistake, nor could the contractual document be rectified in this instance. Denning LJ said this was not a claim for rectification because that is concerned with contracts and documents, not with intentions. In order to get rectification, it is necessary to show that the parties were in complete agreement on the terms of their contract, but by an error wrote them down wrongly. He said there might have been a case in misrepresentation or mistake but that was not pleaded and it is very different from rectification. He added that they probably should not have dropped the claim for collateral warranty that the beans would comply with a demand for feveroles.
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
case concerning rectification
Rectification
Rectification has the following technical meanings:* Rectification, in astrology* Rectification , a concept found in biology and industrial chemistry* Chinese history: see Cheng Feng...
of contractual documents and interpreting contracts in English law
Interpreting contracts in English law
Interpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement...
.
Facts
Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd was asked to supply ‘up to five hundred tons of Moroccan horsebeans described here as feveroles’ to an English firm in EgyptEgypt
Egypt , officially the Arab Republic of Egypt, Arabic: , is a country mainly in North Africa, with the Sinai Peninsula forming a land bridge in Southwest Asia. Egypt is thus a transcontinental country, and a major power in Africa, the Mediterranean Basin, the Middle East and the Muslim world...
. So, Rose asked an Algerian
Algerian
Algerian may refer to:* Something of, or related to Algeria* A person or people from Algeria, or of Algerian descent. For information about the Algerian people, see Demographics of Algeria and Culture of Algeria. For specific Algerians, see List of Algerians....
supplier, William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd, what feveroles were. Pim replied ‘feveroles means just horsebeans’. They contracted for the supply of ‘horsebeans’. Both believed horsebeans were feveroles. However, little did Rose know, there are three bean sizes, feves, feveroles and fevettes. Rose got feves delivered, which are larger and cheaper. The English firm had a claim for the wrong beans being delivered, and Rose in turn brought a claim against Pim. Rose sought to rectify the contract to put in the word ‘horsebean’.
Judgment
Denning LJ, Singleton LJ and Morris LJJohn Morris, Baron Morris of Borth-y-Gest
John William Morris, Baron Morris of Borth-y-Gest CH, PC, MC was a British judge.In 1914, with the beginning of the First World War, Morris served in the Royal Welsh Fusiliers until its end...
held that because both parties were agreed on horsebeans, and the contract was not void for mistake, nor could the contractual document be rectified in this instance. Denning LJ said this was not a claim for rectification because that is concerned with contracts and documents, not with intentions. In order to get rectification, it is necessary to show that the parties were in complete agreement on the terms of their contract, but by an error wrote them down wrongly. He said there might have been a case in misrepresentation or mistake but that was not pleaded and it is very different from rectification. He added that they probably should not have dropped the claim for collateral warranty that the beans would comply with a demand for feveroles.
See also
- Interpreting contracts in English lawInterpreting contracts in English lawInterpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement...
- Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932] UKHL 2
- Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
- Scriven Bros & Co v Hindley & Co [1913] 3 KB 564
- Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566