Raffles v. Wichelhaus [1864]
2 H. & C. 906, 159 Eng. Rep. 375 (Ex. 1864) · Court of Exchequer · England and Wales
Issue
Was there mutual assent when the parties meant different ships?
Held
No enforceable contract was found on the pleaded ambiguity.
Exam use
Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.
Summary
Classic latent ambiguity and mutual assent case.
Facts
Issue
Was there mutual assent when the parties meant different ships?
Held
No enforceable contract was found on the pleaded ambiguity.
Ratio Decidendi
Mutual misunderstanding about a material term can prevent contract formation.
Reasoning
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Raffles v. Wichelhaus (2 H. & C. 906, 159 Eng. Rep. 375 (Ex. 1864)) strengthens a contract law answer because the case reflects the principle that Mutual misunderstanding about a material term can prevent contract formation. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Was there mutual assent when the parties meant different ships? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Significance
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
Revision Checklist
- Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
- State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
- Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
- Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.