Boulton vs Jones 1857 Case – Case brief

The importance of this case of “Boulton vs Jones” would be understood through the concepts of the offer made when it comes to the ascertained and the specific person as well. When the other party performs their act and when the offer is made, the offer would be the promise for the performance by the two parties. The Indian Contract Act has mentioned conditions which are essentials when the offer can be terminated or when it can be revoked as well.

There are 2 important kinds of offer and they are the General offer and the Specific Offer respectively. General offer can be understood as the offer where it can be made to the large public or the public at large and the acceptance can be given by any person among the public to whom it was made and it leads to fulfillment when the necessary conditions are fulfilled by the persons to contract and the conditions are mentioned by the Indian Contract Act, 1872.  Coming to the specific offer it means that the offer is made only to the person who is specific or it is only made to a specific person for the contract. So the right of action is only there to that person to whom the offer is made and there is no right to action accrues to any other person.

Facts of the Case:

Jones, the offender, operated a construction materials company. He was a frequent client of Brocklehurst, which supplied him with construction supplies. They were friends with each other now on both sides. On a beautiful day, the offender sent Brocklehurst’s store a written order for products. The offender moved his company to Boulton without knowing that Brocklehurst had already been sold. When Boulton got the order for the goods, he made the decision to fulfill it and gave the items to the defendant without letting him know that he had taken over Brocklehurst’s company. The offender used the items after accepting them under the impression that Brocklehurst had provided them.

Issues of the Case:

  1. Was Jones the defendant to Boulton, be liable to pay? And whether the claimed goods amount by the boulton was already used by the Jones or not?
  2. Whether there was any duty on the Boulton which has to be performed for giving the information regarding the taking over of the business and its information to be given to Jones?

Judgment : The judge ruled that Mr. Jones, the defendant, was not responsible for paying Boulton’s fee. A contract is crucial when it is formed with a particular individual. There was therefore no agreement between the parties.

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *