Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Leading Cases in the Common Law$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

A. W. Brian Simpson

Print publication date: 1996

Print ISBN-13: 9780198262992

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: March 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198262992.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 23 September 2018

The Beauty of Obscurity: Raffles v. Wichelhaus and Busch (1864)

The Beauty of Obscurity: Raffles v. Wichelhaus and Busch (1864)

Chapter:
(p.135) 6 The Beauty of Obscurity: Raffles v. Wichelhaus and Busch (1864)
Source:
Leading Cases in the Common Law
Author(s):

A. W. Brian Simpson

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198262992.003.0006

This chapter discusses the case of Raffles v. Wiehelhaus and Busch. The fame of Raffles v. Wiehelhaus largely rested upon the utter obscurity as to what the litigation and its decision was about. The action was for damages. It was brought by William Winter Raffles for failure by the defendants, Daniel Wiehelhaus and Gustav Busch, to accept and pay for 125 bales of Surat cotton. The cotton was ‘to arrive ‘ex Peerless’ from Bombay. This was a Liverpool contract, and it was there that delivery was to be made. Peerless was, of course, the name of a ship, and the type of cotton involved was that grown in the Achmedabad district of Bombay. Raffles said that the cotton had indeed arrived at Liverpool on the Peerless, but the defendants refused to accept and pay for the cotton. The defendants replied that in the contract, which was a written one, the defendants intended to refer to a ship called Peerless which had left Bombay in October. The cotton which the plaintiff had offered to deliver had arrived at Liverpool on an entirely different ship, which had sailed from Bombay in December. But this ship was, unfortunately, also called Peerless. The pleadings do not speculate as to which ship Raffles had in mind, and neither the pleadings nor the law reports reveal the year in which the sailings from Bombay took place, nor the order in which the ships arrived. But they do imply that the October ship, as well as the December ship, had safely reached Liverpool. Absolutely no indication was given about how the misunderstanding, if indeed there was a misunderstanding, had come about.

Keywords:   common law, damages, payment, litigation

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .