Scriven Bros and Co v Hindley and Co [1913]

Court: King's Bench

Facts: Scriven Bros engaged an auctioneer to sell bales of tow and hemp. The packaging and samples were similar, leading the defendant, Hindley & Co, to mistakenly bid for a lot of tow, thinking it was hemp. When the mistake was discovered, the defendants refused to pay.

Issue: Was there a valid contract despite the mutual mistake regarding the subject matter?

Held: The court ruled there was no binding contract due to the mutual mistake and lack of a meeting of minds (consensus ad idem). The confusion was partly due to the plaintiff's failure to distinguish the samples clearly and the defendant's negligence in not checking the samples carefully.

Key Judicial Statement: The court emphasized that a contract cannot exist without a meeting of minds. Mutual mistakes that go to the essence of the contract render it void.

💡Leveluplaw: For a contract to be valid, both parties must be in agreement about the subject matter. Mistakes of this nature prevent the formation of a binding contract.