| 词条 | Courturier v Hastie |
| 释义 |
| name = Couturier v Hastie | court = House of Lords | image = Céréales aplaties.jpg | date decided = | full name = Gustavus COUTURIER & Others v Robert HASTIE & Another | citations = [1856] UKHL J3, (1856) 5 HLC 673 | judges = Baron Alderson, Justice Wightman, Justice Creswell, Justice Erle, Justice Williams, Baron Martin, Justice Crompton, Justice Willes, Baron Bramwell | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = | keywords = Frustration, common mistake }} Couturier v Hastie [1856] UKHL J3 is an English contract law case, concerning common mistake between two contracting parties about the possibility of performance of an agreement. FactsCouturier agreed with Hastie to deliver some corn. They thought it was in transit between Salonica (now Thessaloniki) and the UK. But the corn had already decayed. The shipmaster had sold it. Couturier argued that Hastie was liable for the corn because Hastie had already bought an ‘interest in the adventure’, or rights under the shipping documents. JudgmentThe House of Lords held that because the corn effectively did not exist at the time of the contract, there was a total failure of consideration and the buyers were not liable to pay the price. Lord Cranworth L.C. said: "The whole question turns upon the construction of the contract... Looking to the contract... alone it appears to me clearly that what the parties contemplated... was that there was an existing something to be sold and bought."[1] See also{{Clist impossibility}}
Notes1. ^(1856) 5 H.L.C. 673 at 681 4 : English mistake case law|House of Lords cases|1856 in case law|1856 in British law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。