Boulton v Jones

(1857) 2 H & N 564

Exchequer

The plaintiff had been foreman and manager to one Brocklehurst, a hose pipe manufacturer, with whom the defendants had been in the habit of dealing, and with whom they had a running account. On the morning of the 13 January 1857 the plaintiff bought Brocklehurst\'s stock, fixtures, and business, and paid for them. In the afternoon of the same day, the defendant\'s servant brought a written order, addressed to Brocklehurst, for three 50-feet leather hose 2½ in. The goods were supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff\'s book keeper struck out the name of Brocklehurst and inserted the name of the plaintiff in the order. An invoice was afterwards sent in by the plaintiff to the defendants who said they knew nothing of him.

Pollock CB

The point raised is, whether the facts proved did no shew an intention on the part of the defendants to deal with Brocklehurst. The plaintiff, who succeeded Brocklehurst in business, executed the order without any intimation of the change that had taken place, and brought this action to recover the price of the goods supplied. It is a rule of law, that if a person intends to contract with A, B. cannot give himself any right under it. Here the order in writing was given to Brocklehurst. Possibly Brocklehurst might have adopted the act of the plaintiff in supplying the goods, and maintained an action for their price. But since the plaintiff has chosen to sue, the only course the defendants could take was to plead that there was no contract with him.

Bramwell B

The admitted facts are, that the defendants sent to a shop an order for goods, supposing they were dealing with Brocklehurst. The plaintiff, who supplied the goods, did not undeceive them. If the plaintiff were now at liberty to sue the defendants, they would be deprived of their right of set-off as against Brocklehurst. When a contract is made, in which the personality of the contracting party is or may be of importance, as a contract with a man to write a book, or the like, or where there might be a set-off, no other person can interpose and adopt the contract. As to the difficulty that the defendants need not pay anybody, I do not see why they should, unless they have made a contract either express or implied. I decide the case on the ground that the defendants did not know that the plaintiff was the person who supplied the goods, and that allowing the plaintiff to treat the contract as made with him would be a prejudice to the defendants.

AGREEMENT