Misplaced Pages

Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

Rose v Pim
CourtCourt of Appeal
Decided6 March 1953
Citations[1953] 2 QB 450Closed access icon
2 All ER 739
Court membership
Judges sittingDenning LJ, Singleton LJ and Morris LJ
Keywords
Rectification

Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd [1953] 2 QB 450Closed access icon is an English contract law case concerning the rectification of contractual documents and the interpretation of contracts in English law.

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 Egypt. 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 replace ‘horsebean’ with ‘feverole’.

Judgment

Denning LJ, Singleton LJ and Morris LJ 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

Construing contract terms
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597Closed access icon
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
Canada Steamship Lines v R [1952] AC 192Closed access icon
Rose Ltd v Pim Ltd [1953] 2 QB 450Closed access icon
The Diana Prosperity [1976] 1 WLR 989Closed access icon
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2
Thake v Maurice [1986] QB 644Closed access icon
ICS Ltd v West Bromwich BS [1997] UKHL 28
HIH Casualty Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank [2003] UKHL 6
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38
Oceanbulk Shipping SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKHL 44
Interpreting contracts in English law

Notes

References

  • Spencer, ‘The Rule in L’Estrange v Graucob’ CLJ 104, 108
Categories: