Scriven Bros & Co v Hindley & Co (1913)

English Contract Law

Scriven Bros & Co v Hindley & Co
‘Hull Docks by Night’ by Arthur E. Grimshaw

Negligence and mistake, are two elements of contract law which conflict as between vendor and purchaser, particularly when the former is unreasonably applied to the buyer. In this very brief but notable case, the issue in hand turns upon the overpayment for a product at auction.

As was typical of the period, many agricultural products were imported for domestic use, as the temperate weather of foreign countries provided for larger tonnage and lower prices. On this occasion, the subject matter was Russian industrial grade hemp, which while grown widely across the UK, remained their largest export at the time, and was a much sought after commodity. Contrastingly, tow is a by-product of hemp, and is thus sold at a much lower price, often for use as upholstery stuffing and other secondary purposes.

When a dockside auctioneer put out large bales of both hemp and tow, the samples shown to potential bidders were easily confusable. To make matters worse, the two consignments were given similar lot names, therefore for those uninitiated, the possibility of bidding in error was high. On this occasion, the purchaser had recruited a manager to bid on his behalf, at which point he had placed similar bids on both items on the assumption that he was buying hemp. To his further detriment, the auction programmes failed to distinguish the lots, and so only those who had the foresight to inspect them beforehand were spared the embarrassment of overpaying for items of lower market value.

When the purchaser discovered his managers error, he sued the auctioneers for misrepresentation upon the principle of ‘ad idem’ (which is parties not in agreement to the nature of a contract), who themselves counter-sued for negligence on the part of the manager. In the original trial, it was found that there could be no evidence of a contract as per the principle of disagreement, and that no grounds of negligence existed in the absence of any duty of care by the manager to examine the lots prior to bidding.

When brought before the Court of the Kings Bench, it became apparent despite appreciation of a number of opposing facts, that the auctioneers had been recent victims of fraud, thus were simply looking to pass on the loss to another unsuspecting buyer. And so irrespective of any argument that the onus of inspection fell to the buyer’s representative, it was found that a contract could not be found to exist where no agreement had been settled between the vendor and the purchaser, and so the court awarded for the defendants, while holding that:

“A buyer when he examines a sample does so for his own benefit and not in the discharge of any duty to the seller.”

Author: Neil Egan-Ronayne

Trainee Solicitor, Legal Author and Foodie...

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s