188:. What then is the contract of the plaintiff? It is this: being a resident and inhabitant of Dunkirk, together with his partner, who was born there, he sells a quantity of tea to the defendant, and delivers it at Dunkirk to the defendant's order, to be paid for in ready money there, or by bills drawn personally upon him in England. This is an action brought merely for goods sold and delivered at Dunkirk. Where then, or in what respect is the plaintiff guilty of any crime? Is there any law of England transgressed by a person making a complete sale of a parcel of goods at Dunkirk, and giving credit for them? The contract is complete, and nothing is left to be done. The seller, indeed, knows what the buyer is going to do with the goods, but has no concern in the transaction itself. It is not a bargain to be paid in case the vendee should succeed in landing the goods; but the interest of the vendor is totally at an end, and his contract complete by the delivery of the goods at Dunkirk.
31:
176:, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both were equally in fault,
192:
attending their being run into
England? Clearly not. Debt follows the person, and may be recovered in England, let the contract of debt be made where it will; and the law allows a fiction for the sake of expediting the remedy. Therefore, I am clearly of opinion, that the vendors of these goods are not guilty of any offence, nor have they transgressed against the provisions of any Act of Parliament.
208:.” Translated, it might be rendered thus: In England, tea, which has not paid duty, is prohibited; and if sold there the contract is null and void. But if sold and delivered at a place where it is not prohibited, as at Dunkirk, and an action is brought for the price of it in England, the buyer shall be condemned to pay the price; because the original contract was good and valid.—He goes on thus: “
212:.” Apply this in the same manner.—But if the goods sold were to be delivered in England, where they are prohibited; the contract is void, and the buyer shall not be liable in an action for the price, because it would be an inconvenience and prejudice to the State if such an action could be maintained.
215:
The gist of the whole turns upon this; that the conclusive delivery was at
Dunkirk. If the defendant had bespoke the tea at Dunkirk to be sent to England at a certain price; and the plaintiff had undertaken to send it into England, or had had any concern in the running it into England, he would have
191:
To what a dangerous extent would this go if it were to be held a crime. If contraband clothes are bought in France, and brought home hither; or if glass bought abroad, which ought to pay a great duty, is run into
England; shall the French taylor or the glass-manufacturer stand to the risk or loss
183:
The question therefore is, whether, in this case, the plaintiff's demand is founded upon the ground of any immoral act or contract, or upon the ground of his being guilty of any thing which is prohibited by a positive law of this country. — An immoral contract it certainly is not; for the revenue
165:
The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the
149:
into
England, though was not concerned with the smuggling scheme. The method of payment was meant to be by bills of exchange drawn in England. The claimant brought an action for non-payment, and the defendant contended that it could not be enforced because the contract was unlawful.
228:
Every action here must be tried by the law of
England, but the law of England says that in a variety of circumstances, with regards to contracts legally made abroad, the laws of the country where the cause of action arose shall
216:
been an offender against the laws of this country. But upon the facts of the case, from the first to the last, he clearly has offended against no law of
England. Therefore, let the rule for a new trial be discharged.
205:
In certo loco merces quædam prohibitæ sunt. Si vendantur ibi, contractus est nullus. Verum, si merx eadem alibi sit vendita, ubi non erat interdicta, emptor condemnabitur, quia, contractus inde ab initio validus
170:. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own standing or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise
129:
It is also possibly the first case in
English law where the court explicitly recognised that aspects of a claim before the court might be adjudicated according to foreign law.
559:
Alexander Sack, ‘Conflicts of Laws in the
History of England’, in Alison Reppy (ed.), Law: A Century of Progress - 1835-1935 (New York University Press, 1937), vol 3, p 395.
210:
Verum si merces venditæ in altero loco, ubi prohibitæ sunt essent tradendæ, jam non fieret condemnatio, quia repugnaret hoc juri et commodo reipublicæ quæ merces prohibuit
518:
199:
lays down, is founded in good sense, and upon general principles of justice. I entirely agree with him. He puts the general case in question, thus: tit.
612:
166:
advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. The principle of public policy is this;
597:
474:
239:
396:
277:
158:
85:
592:
161:
held that the agreement could be enforced because the seller had himself done nothing unlawful. He said the following.
318:
30:
617:
530:
490:
294:
602:
332:
244:
358:
504:
382:
607:
448:
270:
434:
306:
541:
460:
263:
123:
8:
322:
508:
336:
70:
494:
480:
438:
386:
221:
464:
400:
370:
410:
346:
172:
586:
106:
422:
196:
255:
146:
195:
I am very glad the old books have been looked into. The doctrine
138:
184:
laws themselves, as well as the offences against them, are all
126:
case concerning the principles behind illegal transactions.
145:
to the defendant. The claimant knew it was intended to be
142:
520:
Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd (Judgment No 3)
584:
568:(1775) 1 Cowp 341 at 344, 98 ER 1120 at 1121.
271:
238:The decision was cited with approval by the
278:
264:
29:
476:Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman
285:
397:HIH Casualty Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank
585:
613:Court of King's Bench (England) cases
259:
13:
14:
629:
598:English conflict of laws case law
319:Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
233:
178:potior est conditio defendentis
562:
553:
16:1775 English contract law case
1:
574:
531:Terms in English contract law
491:AG of Belize v Belize Telecom
168:ex dolo malo non oritur actio
359:Hartog v Colin & Shields
333:Interfoto Ltd v Stiletto Ltd
245:Government of India v Taylor
7:
251:
153:
137:The claimant, who lived in
10:
634:
505:Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams
383:ICS Ltd v West Bromwich BS
295:L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd
593:English contract case law
528:
515:
501:
487:
471:
457:
449:Johnstone v Bloomsbury HA
445:
431:
419:
407:
393:
379:
367:
355:
343:
329:
323:[1970] EWCA Civ 2
315:
303:
291:
96:
91:
81:
76:
66:
56:
48:
40:
28:
23:
547:
224:point, Mansfield added:
132:
122:(1775) 1 Cowp 341 is an
435:Mahmud and Malik v BCCI
231:
218:
307:Chapelton v Barry UDC
226:
163:
44:Court of King's Bench
618:Lord Mansfield cases
542:English contract law
461:Liverpool CC v Irwin
286:Contract terms cases
203:, vol 2, pag. 539. “
124:English contract law
603:1775 in British law
220:In relation to the
35:Smugglers Tea Rooms
414:(1766) 3 Burr 1905
350:(1871) LR 6 QB 597
201:De Conflictu Legum
537:
536:
159:Lord Mansfield CJ
115:
114:
86:Lord Mansfield CJ
60:(1775) 1 Cowp 341
625:
608:1775 in case law
569:
566:
560:
557:
521:
477:
280:
273:
266:
257:
256:
222:conflict of laws
119:Holman v Johnson
77:Court membership
33:
24:Holman v Johnson
21:
20:
633:
632:
628:
627:
626:
624:
623:
622:
583:
582:
577:
572:
567:
563:
558:
554:
550:
538:
533:
524:
519:
511:
497:
483:
475:
467:
453:
441:
427:
426:(1889) 14 PD 64
415:
403:
389:
375:
371:Thake v Maurice
363:
351:
339:
325:
311:
299:
287:
284:
254:
236:
156:
135:
111:
61:
36:
17:
12:
11:
5:
631:
621:
620:
615:
610:
605:
600:
595:
581:
580:
576:
573:
571:
570:
561:
551:
549:
546:
545:
544:
535:
534:
529:
526:
525:
516:
513:
512:
502:
499:
498:
488:
485:
484:
472:
469:
468:
458:
455:
454:
446:
443:
442:
432:
429:
428:
420:
417:
416:
411:Carter v Boehm
408:
405:
404:
394:
391:
390:
380:
377:
376:
368:
365:
364:
356:
353:
352:
347:Smith v Hughes
344:
341:
340:
330:
327:
326:
316:
313:
312:
304:
301:
300:
292:
289:
288:
283:
282:
275:
268:
260:
253:
250:
240:House of Lords
235:
232:
186:positivi juris
173:ex turpi causa
155:
152:
134:
131:
113:
112:
110:
109:
104:
101:
97:
94:
93:
89:
88:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
68:
64:
63:
58:
54:
53:
50:
46:
45:
42:
38:
37:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
630:
619:
616:
614:
611:
609:
606:
604:
601:
599:
596:
594:
591:
590:
588:
579:
578:
565:
556:
552:
543:
540:
539:
532:
527:
523:
522:
514:
510:
507:
506:
500:
496:
493:
492:
486:
482:
479:
478:
470:
466:
463:
462:
456:
451:
450:
444:
440:
437:
436:
430:
425:
424:
418:
413:
412:
406:
402:
399:
398:
392:
388:
385:
384:
378:
373:
372:
366:
361:
360:
354:
349:
348:
342:
338:
335:
334:
328:
324:
321:
320:
314:
309:
308:
302:
297:
296:
290:
281:
276:
274:
269:
267:
262:
261:
258:
249:
247:
246:
241:
230:
225:
223:
217:
213:
211:
207:
202:
198:
193:
189:
187:
181:
179:
175:
174:
169:
162:
160:
151:
148:
144:
140:
130:
127:
125:
121:
120:
108:
107:choice of law
105:
102:
99:
98:
95:
90:
87:
84:
82:Judge sitting
80:
75:
72:
69:
65:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
39:
32:
27:
22:
19:
564:
555:
517:
503:
489:
473:
459:
452:2 All ER 293
447:
433:
423:The Moorcock
421:
409:
395:
381:
369:
362:3 All ER 566
357:
345:
331:
317:
305:
293:
243:
237:
234:Significance
227:
219:
214:
209:
204:
200:
194:
190:
185:
182:
177:
171:
167:
164:
157:
136:
128:
118:
117:
116:
18:
52:5 July 1775
587:Categories
575:References
509:EWCA Civ 5
337:EWCA Civ 6
103:illegality
67:Transcript
62:98 ER 1120
100:contracts
71:CommonLII
57:Citations
310:1 KB 532
298:2 KB 394
252:See also
248:AC 491.
154:Judgment
147:smuggled
92:Keywords
495:UKPC 10
481:UKHL 39
439:UKHL 23
387:UKHL 28
229:govern.
197:Huberus
141:, sold
139:Dunkirk
49:Decided
465:UKHL 1
401:UKHL 6
374:QB 644
548:Notes
133:Facts
41:Court
206:fuit
242:in
143:tea
589::
180:.
279:e
272:t
265:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
