7/29/2019 Boulton v Jones

1/2

Boulton v Jones

Facts:

The plaintiff had been foreman and manager to one Brocklehurst, a hose pipe manufacturer, withwhom the defendants had been in the habit of dealing, and with whom they had a running

account. On the morning of the 13 January 1857 the plaintiff bought Brocklehurst's stock,

fixtures, and business, and paid for them. In the afternoon of the same day, the defendant'sservant brought a written order, addressed to Brocklehurst, for three 50-feet leather hose 2 in.

The goods were supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's book keeper struck out the name of

Brocklehurst and inserted the name of the plaintiff in the order. An invoice was afterwards sentin by the plaintiff to the defendants who said they knew nothing of him.

Judgment :

Pollock CB

The point raised is, whether the facts proved did no shew an intention on the part of the

defendants to deal with Brocklehurst. The plaintiff, who succeeded Brocklehurst in business,

executed the order without any intimation of the change that had taken place, and brought this

action to recover the price of the goods supplied. It is a rule of law, that if a person intends tocontract with A, B. cannot give himself any right under it. Here the order in writing was given to

Brocklehurst. Possibly Brocklehurst might have adopted the act of the plaintiff in supplying the

goods, and maintained an action for their price. But since the plaintiff has chosen to sue, the only

course the defendants could take was to plead that there was no contract with him.

Bramwell B

The admitted facts are, that the defendants sent to a shop an order for goods, supposing they

were dealing with Brocklehurst. The plaintiff, who supplied the goods, did not undeceive them.

If the plaintiff were now at liberty to sue the defendants, they would be deprived of their right ofset-off as against Brocklehurst. When a contract is made, in which the personality of the

contracting party is or may be of importance, as a contract with a man to write a book, or the

like, or where there might be a set-off, no other person can interpose and adopt the contract. As

to the difficulty that the defendants need not pay anybody, I do not see why they should, unless

they have made a contract either express or implied. I decide the case on the ground that thedefendants did not know that the plaintiff was the person who supplied the goods, and that

allowing the plaintiff to treat the contract as made with him would be a prejudice to thedefendants.

7/29/2019 Boulton v Jones

2/2

Suggestions:

Yes, the judgment was rightly given since there was no existing contract betweenthem hence he was not liable to pay the price.