Judgement for the case Rose v Pim
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff asked Defendant what “feveroles” were. Defendant mistakenly said that they were “horse beans” and Defendant agreed to sell them to Plaintiff.
After paying, Plaintiff 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, Defendant had not breached.
For Further Study on Rose v Pim
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Shipping and International Trade Law notes fully updated for recent exa...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
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 StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Contract Law | Contract Law Problem Question Summary Notes (157 pages) |
| Contract Law | Mistake Notes (19 pages) |
| Shipping and International Trade | Monetary Remedies Notes (65 pages) |
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.