COMMERCIAL LAW CASES - Bright`s Copy COMMERCIAL LAW CASES Is money a good Moss v Hancock[1899 2 QB 111 England Justice Darling\"Money(is that which

COMMERCIAL LAW CASES - Bright`s Copy COMMERCIAL LAW...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 51 pages.

Bright`s Copy 1 COMMERCIAL LAW CASES Is money a good? Moss v Hancock ([1899] 2 QB 111, England), Justice Darling "Money ... (is) that which passes freely from hand to hand throughout the community in final discharge of debts and full payment for commodities, being accepted equally without reference to the character or credit of the person who offers it and without the intention of the person who receives it to consume it or apply it to any other use than in turn to tender it to others in discharge of debts or payment of commodities. Mistake Ingram v Little[1961] 1 QB 31Court of AppealTwo sisters Hilda and Elsie Ingram sold their car to a rogue calling himself Mr. Hutchinson. They agreed a price for cash, but when the rogue offered a cheque Elsie said the deal was off. She wanted cash or no sale. The rogue then gave them his full name and address and Hilda went to the post office, which was two minutes down the road, to check the details out. When she returned she informed Elsie that the details checked out and the sisters agreed to let Mr. Hutchinson take the car. The cheque was dishonored and the car was sold on to Mr. Little. The sisters brought an action to recover the car. Held: The contract was void for mistake. The Court of Appeal held that the sisters only intended to deal with Mr. Hutchinson at the address given because they were not willing to offer a sale for payment by cheque from anyone else. This case has received widespread criticism and has not been followed since.FORMATION OF A CONTRACT Forged document cannot be a contract A.J.Karia v V.K.Shah(1962) EA 43 The appellant sued the respondents for damages for alleged breach of a contract to sell 3,200 tins of kerosene in accordance with a sale note prepared by a broker acting for the appellants. The broker’sevidence was that having negotiated the transaction, he prepared a sale note in quadruplicate, threecopies of which he sent to the respondents for signature, of which they returned two copies dulysigned but with the words added “Subject to the delivery from the Caltex Company”; that when heobjected to this addition the respondents asked for the return of the two copies for deletion of thewords, that he returned the notes and later received them back
Bright`s Copy 2 with the addition deleted. A partner of the respondents said the broker had agreed during negotiations to the condition, but had brought themthe sale note for signature without the words inserted, that he had then gone with the broker to theCaltex office to ascertain the position regarding delivery, after which he had inserted the conditionand in the broker’s presence signed three copies of the sale note, two of which he handed to the broker who then left. The trial judge found that the words added by the respondents had been scored out bythe broker on all copies except the buyers’, which the respondents had retained, he rejected the broker’s evidence and held that since the appellants would not have entered into the contract with thecondition

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture