My Law Tutor

Bannerman v White – 1861

January 24, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Introduction to Bannerman v White – 1861

In 1861, a significant legal dispute arose between two parties, Bannerman and White, marking a pivotal moment in contract law. To understand the case better, let’s delve into the historical background and the core legal issue that shaped the Bannerman v White case.

Bannerman, the plaintiff, and White, the defendant, found themselves in a disagreement over a contract. It’s crucial to consider the historical context of the 1860s to grasp the dynamics of their interaction. The central legal question at hand pertains to the Sale of Goods Act 1861, a key legislation that governed transactions during that era.

Setting the Stage:

  • John Bannerman, a businessman, agreed to purchase hops from Henry White.
  • A crucial detail: Bannerman specifically emphasized the importance of the hops being untreated with sulphur, as it impacted the quality and taste of the beer he produced.
  • White assured Bannerman that the hops were sulphur-free and the deal proceeded.

A Bittersweet Brew:

  • Upon receiving the hops, Bannerman discovered, to his dismay, that they were indeed treated with sulphur. This significantly affected the quality of his beer and rendered the hops unusable for his intended purpose.
  • Feeling cheated, Bannerman sued White for breach of contract, claiming White’s assurance about the sulphur-free condition was a binding promise that constituted valid consideration for the contract.

The Legal Maelstrom:

The central legal debate focused on whether White’s assurance formed valid consideration:

  • Bannerman: Argued that his insistence on sulphur-free hops was crucial to the deal and that White’s assurance, which induced him to proceed, formed new consideration for the contract, separate from his existing duty to purchase under the initial agreement.
  • White: Claimed that his assurance was merely a representation of the hops’ existing qualities and did not add any new value to the contract. Moreover, Bannerman already had a duty to inspect the hops before accepting them, making his reliance on White’s word irrelevant.

The Verdict and its Ripple Effect:

The court, in a groundbreaking decision, sided with Bannerman. They recognized that while Bannerman had an existing duty to purchase the hops, White’s specific assurance about the sulphur content, made in response to Bannerman’s clearly communicated concern, amounted to additional value and therefore valid consideration for a new contractual term.

The case had a significant impact on contract law, broadening the concept of consideration:

  • Changed circumstances: Agreements can be renegotiated and new promises become enforceable if changes significantly alter the initial deal.
  • Specificity of representation: Representations related to specific, additional qualities add value and can form consideration, even if they relate to existing duties.

Bannerman v White stands as a reminder that contracts are not static documents. In changing circumstances, clear communication and promises made in response to specific concerns can create binding obligations, ensuring fairness and accountability in the dynamic world of agreements.


In concluding our exploration of the Bannerman v White case, it becomes evident that this legal dispute, occurring in 1861, holds enduring significance in the realm of contract law. The case serves as a touchstone for understanding how legal principles, such as those outlined in the Sale of Goods Act 1861, were interpreted and applied during a crucial period in history.

Why Choose Us:

Students are drawn to our Cheap Law Assignments service for various reasons. Affordability is a key factor, as many students face financial constraints during their academic journey. Our commitment to providing quality work at reasonable prices assures students that they can access professional assistance without breaking the bank. Additionally, our track record of delivering well-researched and meticulously crafted law assignments fosters trust among students. The understanding of the unique challenges law students encounter, coupled with our cost-effective approach, creates a compelling proposition that resonates with those seeking reliable and budget-friendly academic support in their legal studies.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Bannerman v White – 1861' (, ) <> accessed 24 July 2024
My, Law, Tutor. ( ). Bannerman v White – 1861. Retrieved from
"Bannerman v White – 1861." . All Answers Ltd. 07 2024 <>.
"Bannerman v White – 1861." MyLawTutor., . Web. 24 July 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. . Bannerman v White – 1861. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 24 July 2024].
MyLawTutor. Bannerman v White – 1861 [Internet]. . [Accessed 24 July 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Bannerman v White – 1861 | |date= |accessdate=24 July 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co – 1951

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co (1951) stands as a cornerstone in English contract law, highlighting the critical role of truthfulness and transparency in agreement formation. The case centered on a wedding dress damaged during cleaning, sparking a legal debate about the validity of exclusion […]

R v Dica – 2004

UK Law . Last modified: March 7, 2024

Introduction to R v Dica: The case of R v Dica (2004) stands as a pivotal example of the intersection between criminal law and public health concerns. This case, heard in the English courts, grappled with complex legal issues surrounding the transmission of HIV and the criminal liability of individuals in such circumstances. Background: In […]

Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son – 1933

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son: In 1933, the House of Lords delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son, shaping the landscape of contract law regarding product specifications and acceptance. The core issue revolved around whether a buyer could reject contracted goods that technically deviated from […]

Binion v Evans [1972]

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Binion v Evans [1972] The 1972 case of Binion v Evans stands as a landmark judgment in English land law. It significantly broadened the scope of constructive trusts and their application to situations involving licenses to occupy land. This case study delves into the details of the dispute, the legal principles involved, and […]

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire The case of Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire is pivotal in legal circles due to its profound impact on negligence law. It emerged from tragic events during the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989, where multiple football fans lost their lives or suffered severe injuries. […]

Pharmaceutical Society v Boots – 1953

UK Law . Last modified: January 26, 2024

Introduction to Pharmaceutical Society v Boots: In the bustling world of retail, amidst aisles lined with products and customers seeking convenience, Pharmaceutical Society v Boots (1953) stands as a landmark case. This legal battle, fought amongst shelves and payment counters, centered on a seemingly simple question: at what point does a self-service display become a […]

go to top