28:
172:, which insisted that a professional management run the Niger subsidiary. Cooper hired his friend, Ernest Hyslop Bell, a senior Barclays manager in 1923 as chairman of the subsidiary. Mr Snelling, a tax consultant that had successfully got Lever Bros a big tax refund in 1921, was appointed as vice chairman. They did well, and turned a profit. The company was then merged with a former competitor (African and Eastern Trade Corporation) to form the
273:
Lever
Brothers in substance was buying the right to 'extinguish' Bell and Snelling. Both parties were under the common mistake that Lever Brothers should pay the "Golden Parachutes" to Bell and Snelling. Lever Brothers did not know Bell and Snelling were speculating while Bell and Snelling did not
281:
In the point of view of Bell and
Snelling, it is the right of entitling the "Golden Parachutes" they are selling. This right does not exist since they speculated. The subject-matter they tried to sell, their right, no longer exist before they enter into the contract. This would be a case of res
346:
where Lord
Blanesburgh said that a director of one company was at liberty to become a director also of a rival company. That may have been so at that time. But it is at the risk now of an application under section 210 if he subordinates the interests of the one company to those of the other."
239:
A mutual mistake as to some fact which, by the common intention of the parties to a contract, whether expressed or implied, constitutes the underlying assumption without which the parties would not have made the contract they did, and which, therefore, affects the substance of the whole
251:
In order for the contract to be void by common mistake the mistake must involve the actual subject-matter of the agreement and must be of such a "fundamental character as to constitute an underlying assumption without which the parties would not have entered into the agreements".
219:
had known they would not have entered into the agreement. Furthermore, the jury found that at the time of the agreement Bell and
Snelling did not have in mind their illicit acts. Wright J therefore held the compensation agreements were void.
277:
In the point of view of Lever
Brothers, they are in substance buying a right they already had, that is extinguishing Bell and Snelling without paying a cent. This would be a case of res sua, since you cannot buy something you already have.
232:
on mistake. Lord Atkin was writing for the majority. Dissent was written by
Warrington and held that the mistaken assumption was fundamental to the contract, and thus the contract is voidable.
313:
255:
From the facts the Court found that the mistake was not sufficiently close to the actual subject-matter of the agreement. The parties got exactly what they had bargained for.
179:
Bell had wanted to run the new United Africa
Company, because he was too old at 54 to have a job in the City, and he had left his Barclays position. At lunch in the
330:
194:, and used information on future price reductions to sell cocoa from their personal accounts. Lever Brothers Ltd therefore brought a claim for
258:
The MacMillan article explains that the ratio was in part the result of media attention at the time, and socio-economic context of the trial.
285:
In either way, the contract would be void for mistake, though the House of Lords held that the mistake is not fundamental enough.
187:" of £20,000 was given to Mr Snelling. However, shortly after, it was revealed that Bell and Snelling had been part of a regional
86:
451:
293:
The case put a high standard on the finding of common mistake. This was criticized in the later cases written by
228:
On appeal, the House of Lords found that there was no mistake and the contract could not be rescinded nor was it
126:
248:
Effectively, the mistake must nullify or negative consent of the parties in order for the agreement to be void.
441:
215:. The jury found that Bell and Snelling's illicit dealings breached the employment contract and that if the
456:
412:
C MacMillan, 'How temptation led to mistake: an explanation of Bell v Lever
Brothers, Ltd' (2003) 119
446:
266:
In an article by JC Smith, "Contracts- mistake, frustration and implied terms", it is suggested that
195:
183:
he agreed with Cooper that he would get a big compensation package (£30,000) and retire. A similar "
133:
does not lead to a void contract unless the mistake is fundamental to the identity of the contract.
466:
180:
165:
274:
know their speculation would entitle Lever
Brothers to dismiss them without paying anything.
173:
413:
118:
8:
153:
356:
461:
387:
335:
304:
184:
426:
366:
114:
71:
60:
362:
299:
157:
339:
216:
141:
130:
122:
32:
334:, Lord Denning remarked the following, in the context to the equivalent of an
27:
435:
169:
294:
212:
168:) to be the chairman and manage the crisis. Cooper negotiated a loan from
149:
152:, through a 99% owned subsidiary called the Niger Company (formerly the
241:
229:
188:
90:
308:
282:
extincta, the disappearance of the subject-matter of the contract.
145:
321:
and set the standard for common mistake in line with the original
314:
Great Peace
Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd
211:
The initial trial was held before Wright J and a City of London
191:
161:
198:
of the compensation package on grounds of mistake of fact.
307:
for a shared common mistake, which rendered the agreement
303:
where Denning LJ reduced the standard by enumerating an
270:
can be analysed into cases of res sua and res extincta.
235:
The Court identified the mistake as a common mistake.
240:
consideration, is sufficient to render the contract
331:
Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Meyer
164:and senior partner of his uncle's accountant firm,
35:, built in 1929 to house the company's headquarters
160:, the owner of Lever Bros, hired D'Arcy Cooper (a
390:, delivered 15 December 1931, accessed 3 May 2023
317:(2002) the Court of Appeal purported to overturn
433:
89:, Lord Blanesburgh, Lord Warrington of Clyffe,
26:
434:
144:Ltd (which merged in 1930 to become
388:Lever Bros Ltd v Bell (1931) UKHL 2
342:. "Your Lordships were referred to
156:). The Niger trade was in trouble.
13:
14:
478:
420:
393:
223:
148:) was a company which traded in
386:United Kingdom House of Lords,
288:
380:
261:
1:
406:
7:
350:
201:
10:
483:
452:English contract case law
344:Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd
111:Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd
102:
97:
82:
77:
72:Full judgment from Bailii
67:
56:
48:
40:
25:
21:Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd
20:
373:
206:
136:
427:Full text at Bailii.org
268:Bell v. Lever Brothers
246:
127:mistake in English law
125:. Within the field of
323:Bell v Lever Brothers
237:
174:United Africa Company
442:House of Lords cases
414:Law Quarterly Review
369:, (1867) LR 2 HL 149
121:case decided by the
119:English contract law
63:, AC 161, All ER 1
457:1931 in British law
311:. Subsequently, in
154:Royal Niger Company
93:and Lord Thankerton
357:UK competition law
107:
106:
87:Viscount Hailsham
474:
447:1931 in case law
400:
397:
391:
384:
336:unfair prejudice
305:equitable remedy
185:golden parachute
129:, it holds that
78:Court membership
52:15 December 1931
30:
18:
17:
482:
481:
477:
476:
475:
473:
472:
471:
467:Insider trading
432:
431:
423:
409:
404:
403:
398:
394:
385:
381:
376:
363:Cooper v Phibbs
353:
319:Solle v Butcher
300:Solle v Butcher
291:
264:
226:
209:
204:
166:Cooper Brothers
158:Lord Leverhulme
139:
36:
12:
11:
5:
480:
470:
469:
464:
459:
454:
449:
444:
430:
429:
422:
421:External links
419:
418:
417:
408:
405:
402:
401:
392:
378:
377:
375:
372:
371:
370:
359:
352:
349:
340:UK company law
290:
287:
263:
260:
225:
224:House of Lords
222:
217:Lever Brothers
208:
205:
203:
200:
142:Lever Brothers
138:
135:
131:common mistake
123:House of Lords
105:
104:
103:Common mistake
100:
99:
95:
94:
84:
83:Judges sitting
80:
79:
75:
74:
69:
65:
64:
58:
54:
53:
50:
46:
45:
44:House of Lords
42:
38:
37:
33:Unilever House
31:
23:
22:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
479:
468:
465:
463:
460:
458:
455:
453:
450:
448:
445:
443:
440:
439:
437:
428:
425:
424:
415:
411:
410:
396:
389:
383:
379:
368:
365:
364:
360:
358:
355:
354:
348:
345:
341:
338:action under
337:
333:
332:
326:
324:
320:
316:
315:
310:
306:
302:
301:
296:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
269:
259:
256:
253:
249:
245:
243:
236:
233:
231:
221:
218:
214:
199:
197:
193:
190:
186:
182:
177:
175:
171:
170:Barclays Bank
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
134:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:
112:
101:
96:
92:
88:
85:
81:
76:
73:
70:
66:
62:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
39:
34:
29:
24:
19:
16:
395:
382:
361:
343:
329:
327:
322:
318:
312:
298:
295:Lord Denning
292:
289:Significance
284:
280:
276:
272:
267:
265:
257:
254:
250:
247:
238:
234:
227:
213:Special Jury
210:
178:
140:
110:
109:
108:
15:
297:such as in
262:Discussions
181:Savoy Grill
150:West Africa
436:Categories
407:References
325:standard.
196:rescission
91:Lord Atkin
68:Transcript
176:in 1929.
57:Citations
462:Unilever
351:See also
328:Also in
309:voidable
202:Judgment
146:Unilever
98:Keywords
416:625-659
49:Decided
399:AC 324
367:UKHL 1
192:cartel
162:Quaker
117:is an
115:UKHL 2
61:UKHL 2
374:Notes
207:Trial
189:cocoa
137:Facts
41:Court
242:void
230:void
438::
244:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
