CASE STUDY ON BOULTON VS. JONES {1857} 2H AND N564

SYNOPSIS

1 CASE

2 INTRODUCTION

3 FACTS

4 ISSUES

5 HELD

6 COMMENT

INTRODUCTION

This case is based on the offer made to a particular person. In Contract Law, an offer is a promise in exchange for performance by other party. An offer can be revoked or terminated under certain conditions.

KINDS OF OFFER

There are two kinds of offer which are as follows:-

GENERAL OFFER – General offer is made to the public at large. It may be accepted by any person who fulfills the necessary conditions.

SPECIFIC OFFER – Specific offer is made to a particular person. No right of action accrues to persons other than those to whom the offer is made.

FACTS

The defendant i.e. Jones sent a written order for goods to a shop which is owned by Brocklehurst and which was addressed to him by name. Unknown to the defendant, Brocklehurst had earlier that day sold and transferred his business to Boulton.But Boulton fulfilled the order and delivered the goods to the defendant without notifying him that he had taken over the business. The defendant accepted the goods and consumed them in the belief that they had been supplied by Brocklehurst. When he received Boulton’s invoice he refused to pay it claimimg that he had intended to deal with Brocklehurst personally, since he had dealt with them previously and had a set-off on which he had intended to rely.

ISSUES

1 Is whether Jones is liable to pay Boulton?

2 Is it the duty of the Brocklehurst or Boulton to inform about the takeover of the business to Jones?

3 Can Boulton claim the amount of the goods which was used by the Jones?

HELD

The court held that the defendant i.e. Jones was not liable for the price. When a Contract is made for the identity of the person is important to the Contract. Hence, there was no Contract. “POLLOCK” said that the rule of law is clear, that if you propose to make a contract with A, then B cannot substitute himself for A without your consent and to your disadvantage, securing to himself all the benefit of the contract.

“MARTIN B” said that where the facts prove that the defendant never meant to contract with A alone, B can never force a contract upon him, he was dealt with A, and a contract with no one else can be set up against him.

“BRAMWELL B” said that I do not lay it down because a contract was made in one person’s name another person cannot sue upon it, except in cases of agency.

“CHANNELL B” said that the plaintiff is clearly not in a situation to sustain this action, for there was no contract between himself and the defendant. The case is not one of Principal and agent; it was a contract made with B, who had transactions with the defendant and owed him money, and upon which A seeks to sue.” So, the Jones will not be liable to pay {Section 64 will also apply} which talks about rescissions of a voidable contract.

COMMENT

Originally the contract is between Brocklehurst and Jones has no idea that now the business is taken over by the Boulton. Jones assumed that he placed an order to Brocklehurst which is the original party to the contract but not to the Boulton.

Only the person to whom the offer is made can acceptit. No other party can accept on behalf of the either party. According to me the judgement which is given in this case is right according to the facts of the case.

Acceptance is only made by that person to whom it is given. For example- Contract to write a book or perform a concert, paint a portrait then no other person can adopt the contract.

Tags: Boulton vs. Jones {1857} 2H AND N564