Legal Case Summary
Scriven Bros and Co. v Hindley and Co. [1913] 3 KB 564
Contract – Mutual Mistake – Subject Matter – Voiding a Contract – Reasonable Man – Sample – Consensus ad Idem – Meeting of the minds
Facts
The complainants, Scriven Bros and Co, instructed an auctioneer to sell large bales of tow and hemp on behalf of them at an auction. The bales looked rather similar in the way they were packaged and the samples that were on display to potential bidders were not easily distinguishable. The defendants, Hindley and Co, believed they were bidding for two lots of hemp, when actually one of the lots was tow. The bid that was made was overpriced, but was accepted by the complainants. When the defendants found out that it was tow, they refused to pay for the lot and the complainant sued them for the price.
Issues
The issue in this case was whether there was a contract between the two parties or if it would be void for mutual mistake as to the subject matter of the contract.
Decision / Outcome
The court held that there was no contract between the complainant and defendant, due to faults on both sides. This meant that there was no consensus ad idem or meeting of the minds to make it a binding contract. The complainant had not made the hemp and tow samples sufficiently clear and the defendant had not brought a catalogue along to the auction, as well as inspected the samples thoroughly before bidding. The defendant’s negligence contributed to the mistakes of the complainant in this case.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Scriven Bros and Co v Hindley and Co [1913] 3 KB 564. The case remains good law as an established illustration of mutual mistake as to subject matter in English contract law, and the core principles it represents — that there can be no binding contract where the parties are at cross-purposes as to the subject matter, and that fault on both sides may negate consensus ad idem — continue to be recognised in standard contract law texts and judgments. No statutory changes or subsequent appellate decisions have overruled or materially altered the authority of this case. Readers should note, however, that the law of mistake in contract is a nuanced area: the House of Lords’ decision in Bell v Lever Brothers [1932] AC 161 and the Court of Appeal’s decision in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407 are particularly important in understanding how mistake operates more broadly, and those cases should be read alongside this one for a complete picture. The article’s use of the term ‘complainant’ in place of ‘claimant’ or ‘plaintiff’ (the terminology used in 1913 proceedings) is a minor inaccuracy but does not affect the legal substance.
