Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) Anemone Julian Denis Lee, Kyung-jin Kang, Seung-Yeon Yoo, Mi Jong

CONTENTS Fact Patterns IRAC format Arguments for Defendant Arguments for Plaintiff Case Analysis – Real world example

Fact Pattern Raffels, plaintiff, and Wichelhaus, defendant, had made a contract which involved the selling and shipping of 125 cotton bales from Bombay to Liverpool. Delivery of the cotton bales via a ship called “Peerless”. Unfortunately there were two ships called “Peerless”, leaving Bombaby in October and the other in December.

When the bales arrived by the boat leaving in december, Wichaelhaus refused to accept the freight because he had expected it to arrive by the boat leaving in October. Raffles did not receive the due amount of money. it then sued Wichelhaus for breaching the contract.

ISSUE Was there a contract? Is Parol Evidence admissible to determine the meaning in the ambiguity? Does miscommunication lead to no binding contract?

RULES OF LAW In order for a contract to be valid, there should be mutual assent (Meeting of the minds). Parol Evidence rule: the term is not in the contract, defedant will have no duty and it will not be a breach of contract.

APPLICATION There was an offer and agreement between both parties. However, both parties thought about different ships so latent ambiguity arised.

APPLICATION In this case, Parol Evidence comes into resolve ambiguity So there is no consensus ad item

CONCLUSION Parol Evidence is admissible in this case because of miscommunication There was an agreement till a certain point. Misunderstanding concerns a key term and neither party knows of the misunderstanding, the contract cannot be valid.

CONCLUSION Therefore, Judgment for Wichelhaus

ARGUMENTS FOR PLAINTIFF (RAFFLES) He showed intention for December “Peerless” ship He had relied (Promissory estoppels) on Defendants’ promise that he should be compensated. Defendant has breached in a sense that he accepted a different shipment from the one he agreed upon.

ARGUMENTS FOR PLAINTIFF (RAFFLES) “to arrive ex Peerless”: only if the vessel is lost on the voyage, the contract is to be at an end Time is not relevant in the contract. Subjective intention of defendant is of no avail unless stated at the time of contract

ARGUMENTS FOR DEFENDANT (WICHELHAUS) He showed intention for October “Peerless” ship and paid for the cottons. There was a lack of understanding between both parties that defendant had no obligation to pay for the December “Peerless”

CASE ANALYSIS Our team believes that there was no valid contract. We believe that defendant’s argument is stronger than plaintiff’s argument

Restatement (Second) Section 20(1): If the misunderstanding concerns a material term and neither party knows or has reason to know of the misunderstanding, there is no contract. Parol evidence is admissible to determine the meanings of terms when a latent ambiguity arises later.

TWO ROOMS WITH THREE BEDS Offer: Acceptance: Bed Room 2 = ! Bed Room 2 Bed Subjectively: Objectively: Mutual agreement ?

Interpretation from an objective viewpoint: Offer + Acceptance No Mutual Agreement Offer + Acceptance + Mentioning of family members Mutual Agreement

REFERENCES Chicago-Kent College of Law Lawnix LawRiot Wikipedia- Raffles v. Wichelhaus, Mistake(contract law) Textbook on American Contract Law (2010)

THANK YOU