Plaintiff contracted to sell corn to Defendant but the corn deteriorated and was sold before the date of the sale and Defendant refused to pay.
Plaintiff sued for the money, claiming that Defendant had really bought the rights from the shipping documents so that any loss to the corn would be the risk of Defendant, not Plaintiff.
HL found for Defendant, saying that:
The document was for the sale of the corn itself and
The risk of mistake as to the existence of the document would go with the seller and
The non-existence of the corn meant that there was no consideration.
Where there is nothing to be sold, Defendant cannot be compelled to pay for the thing that doesn’t exist.
Smith: This doesn’t say whether he means there is no contract or whether the contract does exist but that Plaintiff has not performed.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.