Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Rose v Pim

[1953] 2 QB 450

Case summary last updated at 02/01/2020 17:30 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Rose v Pim

P asked D what “feveroles” were. D mistakenly said that they were “horse beans” and D agreed to sell them to P. After paying, P later realised that actually “feveroles” and “horse beans” were not the same thing. However it was “horse beans” and not “feveroles” mentioned in the oral agreements and contracts and therefore in supplying them, D had not breached. 

Rose v Pim crops up in following areas of law