Wilson, Sons, & Co. v. Denaby Main Colliery Company

Mr. Hearfield appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Lane, barrister, for the defendants.

In opening the case, Mr. Hearfield stated that the action was brought to recover £50 for one month’s damage in respect of the non performance of a contract for the delivery of a quantity of coal during April, 1877. The circumstances of the case were almost undisputed, and in all probability it would resolve itself into a question of law as to whether a contract was made between the plaintiff and defendant or not. Suppose a contract was made the defendants would be admitted, and then the simple question would be the amount of damages by the non-performance of the contract. He would read the documents which preceded the contract. The first letter from the defendants stated, “We accept to supply you with the following coal, viz., 30,000 tons to 40,000 tons, at your option, of our best screened hard steam coal, to be supplied into your sloops or into waggons, during the present year as may be required by you, as nearly monthly quantities as possible.”

Added to the offer was “We accept the above offer, provided Mr. C. H. Wilson does not signify his disapproval by next Tuesday.” Messrs. Wilson on the Tuesday telegraphed to the defendants: “We accept your offer, but make the quantity 10,000 tons less.” The defendants afterwards wrote, and in their letter stated, “And in accordance with your wishes we make the contract 30,000 tons to the end of the year.”

Defendants then entered into another contract with other parties for the sale of the coal at an enhanced price, and they wrote plaintiffs, denying that any bargain existed for the sale of the 30,000 tons.

His Honour, in giving judgment, stated he felt extremely wishful to be able to give plaintiffs a verdict. They had throughout the matter acted in a straightforward and business-like manner, whilst the defendants’ conduct had been the reverse of what he should have expected from an important colliery company. They had undoubtedly intended to make a contract, which it now suited them to repudiate. However, he would assume that the defendants’ manager wished, but did not know how, to make a contract, and on that ground alone he would not deprive defendants of costs. His Honour then stated that with great reluctance he must pronounce that the contract had not been completed in legal form. He accordingly pronounced a verdict for defendants.