LAW

Published on
Scammell v Ouston (1940) House of Lords
​The plaintiffs engaged in negotiations to purchase a new van from the defendants. They established a price and a trade-in value for the plaintiffs' old van. The negotiations revealed that the plaintiffs intended to acquire the item under hire purchase conditions, and the concluding note of the agreement dispatched by the plaintiffs to the defendants stated, ‘This order is issued with the understanding that the remaining purchase price can be financed on hire purchase terms over a duration of two years.’ The defendants retracted from the sale and contended that a contract had never existed. It was determined that no contract existed. The agreement to implement 'hire purchase provisions' was excessively ambiguous to be enforceable. Hire purchase agreements may manifest in various forms, and there is no evidence indicating that any specific terms were intended by the parties involved. It constituted a non-binding agreement to negotiate. (III) The parties remained in negotiations and did not achieve any agreement.
Picture
0 Comments