BUSINESS

LAW

CASE -> CUNDY VS LINDSAY

 INTRODUCTION
CASE FULL NAME >> Cundy V Lindsay & Co.
COURT NAME >> Divisional Court
>> Court of Appeal
>> House of Lords
CITATIONS >> (1877-78) LR 3 App Cas 459
DECIDED ON >> 4 March 1878
JUDGES ON PANEL
>> Lord Baron Blackburn
LORD FRANK NICHOLLS
>> Lord Nicholls HOUSE
HOUSE OFOF LORDS
LORDS
DIVISIONAL COURT
COURT

>> Lord Hugh Cairns

 Hi…. Hello…. Lindsay &
Myself Mr I am Mr. Company
Blenkarn Cundy
 Hello! Welcome
to Lindsay & Co. Hello !
How can I help
you sir?

LINDSAY & Co. BLENKARN

 I’m Blenkiron..
and I want to
order 500 dozen
of handkerchief

LINDSAY & Co. BLENKARN

 Okay

LINDSAY & Co. BLENKARN

LINDSAY & CO.

Dear Lindsay,
Myself Blenkiron, as we spoke earlier on call
about the order of 500 dozen handkerchiefs from your
catalogue. Their item no. is #646542.

The address I would like the order to be

shipped is:
37, Wood Street,
Cheapside
Blenkiron & Co.

Blenkiron
 Hello… How may
I help you Sir ? Hello

BLENKARN CUNDY
 I’m Cundy! I would
like to order 250
Okay dozens of
handkerchief

BLENKARN CUNDY
Mr Blenkarn sent 250 dozens of handercheifs to Mr Cundy
 FACTS OF THE CASE
The claimant received an order for sale of handkerchiefs from a person named
Blenkarn, who signed in his name in a manner resembling “Blenkiron & Co.”- a
reputed firm located at “123, Wood Street”. The purchaser further mentioned
his address to be at “37, Wood Street, Cheapside”, to which the claimant sent
the goods. Although no payment was made by Blenkarn, he sold the goods to a
third person- the defendants.

BLENKARN
resembles as ORDER GOODS
SENT GOODS
SOLD DEFENDANT
PLANTIFF
BLENKIRON & CUNDY
LINDSAY & Co.
CO.
 ISSUES

The case concerned whether a mistake as to the identity of a contracting party was so
fundamental so as to negate the consent of the other party, and thereby, causing the
contract to be void. In other words, the question was whether there was any contract
between the claimant and Blenkarn at the first place, and if not, could the third party
defendants procure a valid title to the goods

• Did the title to the goods pass to Cundy ?

• Can the goods be claimed by Lindsay & Co. from Cundy ?

 JUDGEMENT
(1) DIVISIONAL COURT: Lindsay couldn't
recover goods from Cundy.

(2) COURT OF APPEAL: Overturned the Divisional

Court, holding that Lindsay could recover goods from Cundy.

(3) HOUSE OF LORDS: Lindsay had meant to deal only

with Blenkiran &Co.
 HELD

1)A unilateral mistake was made by Lindsay and Co .

2) In the final judgement of Cundy vs Lindsay (1878),

the House of Lords passed the verdict that the
"GOODS" as well as the "TITLE OF GOODS" belong
to Lindsay and Co. only
 ACTS COVERED WHILE GIVING
JUDGEMENT
A person who possesses and exercise sufficient
mental capacity to make an intelligent decision
demonstrates consent by performing an act
recommended by another.

Two or more persons are said to consent when they

agree upon same thing in the same sense.
 CONCLUSION

 Mistake of identity

Who will bear the loss?

 267 –
210 - STUTI
Anshika
NEGI
singh

256 – Dirgha 217- Sejal

shertukde 236 – pandey
Ashwini
phadke