Written by ELAVARASI. P from THE TAMIL NADU Dr. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY

CASE NAME : BOULTON V JONES.

CASE CITATION : (1857) 2 Hurlstone and Norman 564; 157 ER 232.

DATE OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED : November 25, 1857.

COURTS INVOLVED : Court of Exchequer.

PARTIES INVOLVED : Boulton, Jones, Brocklehurst.

JUDGES INVOLVED : Pollock , Martin , Bramwell, Channell.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION :

A contract is a basic concept that is known to every person regardless of profession. The usage of contracts in the present world are higher in numbers which provokes the importance to learn about it by every individual. The most basic thing for a contract is offer and acceptance. These two aspects have a crucial importance in the contract. An agreement which is enforced by a law is called as a contract. There are various kinds of contracts like quasi contract, gift deed, contract between 2 individuals and so on. Boulton versus Jones, one of the English contract case law that states about the importance of offer and acceptance in a contract. For a contract to be valid it must be between human individuals. Those individuals must have similar intention and without any dishonest intention. In this article let’s discuss about the facts, issues, principles and other cases that are relevant to Boulton v Jones case.

OVERALL CONCEPTS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE :

To ensure that the contract is a valid contract there must be certain essential factors in it they are

Offer
Acceptance
Enforced by Law
Essentials of a valid contract must be followed
Parties to the contract must have capacity to enter into the contract

Offer and Acceptance plays a very important role in the contract between two parties. Whenever there is a contract it must have two parties – one who offers and one who accepts that offer. To make a valid contract the agreement between the parties must be enforced by law. And this agreement is made by two essential factors one is offer and another is acceptance. Offer is a proposal made by one party who signifies his interest to do something or to abstain from doing a thing to another party in a view to get an assent from that party. This is called an offer. While acceptance is When a proposal is accepted with an accent given by the party to whom the offer is made, then it is called Acceptance.

According to the Indian contract act 1872, Offer can be divided into 2 types

General offer – It is the offer that is made to the general public or the public at a large number and the acceptance is given by any person among the public to whom it was made.
Specific offer – Specific offer is offer which is made only to a specified person to whom the offeror wanted to contract with. Here the acceptance shall be given only by the person to whom the proposal is made.

The case law named Boulton v Jones is mainly based on the concepts that are stated above.

FACTS OF THE CASE :

A person named Jones, in this case holds a construction material company. He was a regular client and also a very good friend of Brocklehurst and ordered many construction materials from them. After a period of time, a person named Boulton took over the Brocklehurst business ( Brocklehurst business was sold to Boulton). Jones not knowing that the business of Brocklehurst was sold to Boulton, he ordered certain products from them through a letter. Boulton knowing that Jones wanted the product only from Brocklehurst, he concealed the truth that he had taken over the Brocklehurst and accepted to deliver the products in the name of Brocklehurst. Jones only wanted goods from Brocklehurst so that he can set-off the amount that was owed by Brocklehurst to Jones through the product that he have ordered. Boulton also supplied all the goods demanded by Jones in the name of Brocklehurst and Jones started using those materials on a pretext that it was delivered by Brocklehurst. At a certain point, Jones came to know that the goods were delivered by Boulton and he is in charge. Because of this Jones refused to pay to Boulton stating that Jones intended to buy goods only from Brocklehurst and not from Boulton. He also stated that there is no contract between him and Boulton. As a aggrieved party Boulton sued Jones to give back his money in the court. Here Boulton is the claimant and wanted money for the goods that he have delivered to Jones. While, Jones alleged that the contract was void for mistake.

CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH BY BOTH THE PARTIES :

JONES :

Jones as a party to the case only wanted to buy goods from Brocklehurst and not from any other person. Since the goods were made and delivered by Boulton, who he had not contracted with, thus Jones does not want to pay for the products delivered by Boulton as there is no contract that exist between them. And they also contented that it is a void contract because Boulton misrepresented himself as Brocklehurst.

BOUTON :

Boulton as the claimant claims that he had delivered the said goods to the Jones and wanted the agreed money for those goods. He always claimed that even though he has given products in the name of Brocklehurst, Jones has used some of the products delivered by Boulton. Since he have used them it is necessary to pay for the goods that he have used.

ISSUES RAISED IN THIS CASE :

Whether Jones is liable to pay to Boulton?
Whether he can claim the amount for the goods that were used by Jones?
Whether there was a duty on the part of Boulton to inform about the takeover of the Brocklehurst to Jones?

JUDGMENT :

In this case the judges involved are Pollock, Martin, Bramwell and Channell. On the views of Justice Pollock, he stated that the rule of law is evident and said that if the parties to the contract makes a contract then another party must not substitute himself as the party to the contract which will benefit him while gives disadvantage to another party to the contract. This mustn’t happen.

On the views of Justice Bramwell, he stated that if a contract was made in name of one person then other person cannot sue. It’s exception is agency contract alone. He also stated that whenever a work that involves personal skills are being contracted then the parties to the contract alone shall do that act and no one out of contract shall do that specific act. In certain cases like personal skills, set-off due from the party other persons shall not allowed to say that he is party to the contract.
On the views of Justice Martin, he stated that as the facts are proved that Jones never meant to contract with Boulton, thus Boulton cannot force Jones to fulfill the contract which cannot be enforced against him.
On the views of Justice Channell, he stated that there is no contract between plaintiff and the defendant and it is also not a principal – agent contract. The court by all the opinions stated that there was no valid contract made between the parties.

As there is no contract between the parties the court held that the defendant Jones was not liable to pay the payment to Boulton. The parties to the contract are important in the contract. Hence it was held there is no contract between them.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE INVOLVED :

The main principle used in this case Boulton v Jones is that the offer and acceptance are a very important concepts in contract. To make a contract one must give offer to another person while another person accepts that offer. Only in a lawful means can the agreement becomes a contract. By this offer and acceptance process, no other party shall involve in the process on behalf of another. Only in case of principal and agent, another party shall appear on behalf of the party in the contract. The judgement given in this case is considered to be correct as far as the facts and the circumstances of the case are being considered. When the offer is given to one party, the acceptance shall be given only by that particular party and no one else. In this case there is the involvement of a third party who accepted the offer which was given to another party. Hence, the court held that there is no contract between Jones and Boulton and Jones was not liable to pay the amount to Boulton. Thus the offer and acceptance principle in a contract is used in this case.

Another concept involved in this case is Specified contract. In this case the Jones specifically offered to Brocklehurst. Thus it comes under Specific Offer.

RELEVANT CASE LAW :

Cundy v Lindsay

Citation : (1877-78) LR 3 App Cas 459; [1874-80] All ER Rep 1149

Facts of the case :

In this case a person named Blenkarn ordered 500 handkerchiefs in the name of Blenkiron & company and give the companies address. Lindsay is the one who manufactured those handkerchiefs and delivered it to the Blenkarn. Blenkarn hasn’t paid the amount for the goods and delivered it to the 3rd party. The 3rd party named Cundy bought the goods without the knowledge of Blenkarn’s mischief. Cundy bought the goods in a good faith.

Issued involved in the case :

Whether the contract between Blenkarn and the Lindsay company is void?
Whether the title of the goods are passed to the Cundy?
Whether Lindsay can claim the goods from Cundy?

Judgment made in this case :

The House of Lords in this case held that there is no valid contract between Lindsay under Blenkarn. Because Lindsay by the mistake of identity thought that the goods where ordered by the famous company Blenkiron & company and he does not know that it was ordered by Blenkarn the fraudster. Since Lindsay and company did not intend to contract with the Blenkarn thus the contract that happened shall become void. Then the title of the property through a void contract shall remain with that original owner of the contract. In this case Blenkarn has delivered the goods to 3rd party Cundy. Since there is no valid contract between Lindsey and the Blenkarn, he has no right on the property thus he cannot transfer the title of the property to Cundy. Hence Cundy and Blenkarn has to restore the goods to Lindsay.

Similarities between these two cases :

In Boulton versus Jones case, there is a specific offer that is offered to Brocklehurst while a third party to the contract gives acceptance and it is held to be mistake as of identity and thus the contract is held void.
In case of Cundy v Lindsay, there is mistake of identity where Jones mistaken Blenkiron & company to Blenkarn. Here he have used fraudulent means and the contract between them was held to be void.

CONCLUSION :

In conclusion this case Boulton v Jones states that the contract between Jones and Boulton is void and the money that Boulton claimed for the goods that he have delivered shall not be given back by Jones as per the judgment. This case was held in favour of Jones. This case clearly states about the parties to the contract who are involved in offer and acceptance. It also states that the one to whom the proposal is made must be the one to accept it and none else should give acceptance. If they do so then the contract between them shall become void.