352:
315:
294:
273:
240:
119:
62:
28:
175:
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
155:
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
156:
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’.
176:
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
487:
326:
213:
172:
88:
472:
180:
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
377:
429:
418:
132:
405:
391:
38:
477:
206:
263:
482:
467:
199:
435:
251:
363:
492:
351:
314:
293:
272:
239:
118:
61:
168:
84:
305:
124:
346:
309:
267:
234:
181:
128:
100:
288:
113:
56:
177:
342:
230:
143:
Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd was asked to supply ‘up to five hundred tons of
Moroccan
461:
409:
395:
367:
381:
332:
164:
80:
191:
144:
27:
152:
148:
110:
Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v
William H Pim Junior & Co Ltd
195:
454:
Spencer, ‘The Rule in L’Estrange v
Graucob’ CLJ 104, 108
184:
that the beans would comply with a demand for feveroles.
147:described here as feveroles’ to an English firm in
94:
76:
71:
52:
44:
34:
20:
328:Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
207:
8:
214:
200:
192:
133:interpretation of contracts in English law
26:
17:
488:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
378:HIH Casualty Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank
430:Interpreting contracts in English law
419:Interpreting contracts in English law
7:
406:Oceanbulk Shipping SA v TMT Asia Ltd
392:Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
14:
131:of contractual documents and the
350:
313:
292:
271:
238:
117:
60:
473:English interpretation case law
1:
436:Hartog v Colin & Shields
252:Hartog v Colin & Shields
255:[1939] 3 All ER 566
509:
478:English agreement case law
364:ICS Ltd v West Bromwich BS
264:Canada Steamship Lines v R
416:
402:
388:
374:
360:
339:
323:
302:
281:
260:
248:
227:
222:Construing contract terms
99:
25:
310:[1976] 1 WLR 989
289:[1953] 2 QB 450
114:[1953] 2 QB 450
57:[1953] 2 QB 450
410:[2010] UKHL 44
396:[2009] UKHL 38
368:[1997] UKHL 28
382:[2003] UKHL 6
347:[1986] QB 644
333:[1980] UKHL 2
268:[1952] AC 192
306:The Diana Prosperity
151:. So, Rose asked an
127:case concerning the
125:English contract law
483:1953 in British law
182:collateral warranty
468:Lord Denning cases
285:Rose Ltd v Pim Ltd
235:(1871) LR 6 QB 597
425:
424:
178:misrepresentation
106:
105:
500:
493:1953 in case law
355:
354:
329:
318:
317:
297:
296:
276:
275:
243:
242:
216:
209:
202:
193:
122:
121:
72:Court membership
65:
64:
30:
18:
508:
507:
503:
502:
501:
499:
498:
497:
458:
457:
451:
446:
426:
421:
412:
398:
384:
370:
356:
349:
343:Thake v Maurice
335:
327:
319:
312:
298:
291:
277:
270:
256:
244:
237:
223:
220:
190:
162:
141:
116:
66:
59:
39:Court of Appeal
12:
11:
5:
506:
504:
496:
495:
490:
485:
480:
475:
470:
460:
459:
456:
455:
450:
447:
445:
442:
441:
440:
432:
423:
422:
417:
414:
413:
403:
400:
399:
389:
386:
385:
375:
372:
371:
361:
358:
357:
340:
337:
336:
324:
321:
320:
303:
300:
299:
282:
279:
278:
261:
258:
257:
249:
246:
245:
231:Smith v Hughes
228:
225:
224:
221:
219:
218:
211:
204:
196:
189:
186:
161:
158:
140:
137:
104:
103:
97:
96:
92:
91:
78:
77:Judges sitting
74:
73:
69:
68:
54:
50:
49:
46:
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
505:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
479:
476:
474:
471:
469:
466:
465:
463:
453:
452:
448:
443:
438:
437:
433:
431:
428:
427:
420:
415:
411:
408:
407:
401:
397:
394:
393:
387:
383:
380:
379:
373:
369:
366:
365:
359:
353:
348:
345:
344:
338:
334:
331:
330:
322:
316:
311:
308:
307:
301:
295:
290:
287:
286:
280:
274:
269:
266:
265:
259:
254:
253:
247:
241:
236:
233:
232:
226:
217:
212:
210:
205:
203:
198:
197:
194:
187:
185:
183:
179:
174:
170:
166:
159:
157:
154:
150:
146:
138:
136:
134:
130:
129:rectification
126:
120:
115:
112:
111:
102:
101:Rectification
98:
93:
90:
86:
82:
79:
75:
70:
63:
58:
55:
51:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
439:3 All ER 566
434:
404:
390:
376:
362:
341:
325:
304:
284:
283:
262:
250:
229:
169:Singleton LJ
163:
142:
109:
108:
107:
85:Singleton LJ
67:2 All ER 739
48:6 March 1953
15:
462:Categories
449:References
165:Denning LJ
145:horsebeans
81:Denning LJ
21:Rose v Pim
173:Morris LJ
89:Morris LJ
53:Citations
188:See also
160:Judgment
153:Algerian
95:Keywords
45:Decided
123:is an
444:Notes
149:Egypt
139:Facts
35:Court
171:and
87:and
464::
167:,
135:.
83:,
215:e
208:t
201:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
