Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

May and Butcher Ltd v The King

335 words (1 pages) Case Summary

28th Oct 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Legal Case Summary

May and Butcher Ltd v The King [1934] 2 KB 17

Contract – Certainty – Enforceability – Agreement to Agree


After the end of the First World War, the Government had a surplus of tents which were no longer required by the army. As a result, the Government’s disposal’s board was set up to sell these tents. They agreed to sell tents to May and Butcher Ltd who left £1,000 as a security deposit for their purchases. According to the written agreement between the disposals board and the company, the price for the tents, and the dates on which payment was to be made were to be agreed between the parties, as and when the tents became available. In 1923 a new disposal’s board took over and refused to sell the tents. They stated that they no longer considered themselves bound by the contract. May and Butcher sued but were unsuccessful.  They appealed to the House of Lords.


Were the terms of the agreement sufficiently certain to constitute a legally binding agreement between the parties?

Decision / Outcome

There was no agreement between the parties. A contract for the sale of the tents had never in fact been concluded. This was because a fundamental term of the agreement that was necessary for the sale to be completed had not been agreed. As such, there could not be a contract. Whilst s8 Sale of Goods Act 1893 provided that a price could be fixed in the future, s9 Sale of Goods Act 1893 also provided that if that price could not be fixed by a third party, then no agreement could be made. No third party could set the price for the tents, and the court could not imply a price into the agreement. Therefore, no agreement had been made. The agreement between the claimants and defendant therefore was simply an agreement to agree, and not enforceable.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles