United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

This was an action raised by the respondent against the appellant, for delivery of four puncheons of spirits, or failing which, for damages for non-fulfilment by him of a contract of sale in regard to these spirits, entered into on 3d October 1799, in the following circumstances: It appeared that on 30th September 1799 an order had been made in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill to prohibit for a time the distillation of spirits in Scotland; and the respondent having heard of this early on the morning of the 3d of October, and perceiving that the effect would be to raise very materially the price of spirits, he resolved to purchase up as much spirits as he could at the old price, before information of the Goverment order became generally known. Accordingly he called on the appellant, and concluded a bargain for four puncheons, to be delivered to him at the rate of 5s. 4d. per gallon. After hearing of the news from London, which reached the same day, after the sale was effected, the appellant refused to deliver the spirits at the price agreed on, (the price having risen to 16s. per gallon), stating that he had been tricked and deceived in the matter, whereupon the present action was raised.

Jan. 22, 1803.

After a special interlocutor, stating the facts, the Lord Ordinary found the appellant liable in the sum of £200 damages for non-delivery of the spirits, the loss being estimated as equal to the sum of £200, concluded for in the libel on 1st November 1799, the date of citation to this action.

Jan. 25, 1805.

Mar. 4, 1806.

Mar. 12, 1806.

On reclaiming petitions to the Court varying interlocutors ^* were pronounced. At last the Court pronounced this interlocutor:

“The Lords having resumed consideration of this petition, and advised the same, with the answers thereto, alter the interlocutor complained of, and in terms of the previous interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, modify

_________________ Footnote _________________

* The variation in the interlocutors of Court was upon the amount of damages, and the rule for estimating that amount.

Page: 651↓

the damages to £200 Sterling, and decern for payment thereof to the pursuer, with interest from the 1st Nov. 1799: Find expenses due from the date of the interlocutor of the Court of the 24th Feb. 1802.” ^*

Thereafter, on reclaiming petition, the Court adhered. And their Lordships, upon advising the account of expenses, with the auditor's report, modified the account to £101. 14s. 2d., and decerned.

Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.

Pleaded for the Appellant.—The appellant maintains that the bargain into which he was betrayed, on the morning of the 3d October 1799, was of the nature of a catching bargain, and that it is not obligatory in law. The fact, as uniformly averred by him, has already been stated. On the forenoon of that day, several hours after the mail coach had passed through Leith, and after part of several of the English letters and newspapers had been delivered, Morrison came to the appellant's wareroom, and, under pretence that his stock of spirits was reduced, prevailed on the appellant to sell him four puncheons of whisky at 5s. 4d. per gallon, assuring the seller at the same time that he had no information of any probable rise in the price of the article. At the time this declaration was made, Morrison's stock was not reduced, and he was aware that an event had taken place in the House of Commons, of which the unavoidable consequence was, an immediate rise in the price of Scotch spirits. 2d. But, if this contract, in these circumstances, stands as binding, the appellant ought not to be subjected to the payment of £200 of damages. He is unable to discover on what grounds the Court has proceeded in giving that precise

_________________ Footnote _________________

* Opinions of the Judges:—

It was held by the Court:

“1st, That the buyer's demand was not to be limited to the price at the stipulated day of delivery. 2d. That although the non-delivery be imputable to no fault, the buyer must be indemnified for his actual loss. 3d. That the price at the day of citation was not to be taken as the criterion, since the call to fulfil his engagement would thus discharge the seller from the bad consequences of his subsequent refusal. And, 4th. That it was not practicable, without throwing the matter entirely loose, to enter into the consideration of the probable time at which, had the delivery been duly made, the article would have been disposed of.”—Bell's Com. vol. i. p. 450.

Page: 652↓