My Law Tutor

Hartog v Colin and Shields

March 04, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Introduction to Hartog v Colin and Shields

Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) occupies a critical position in English contract law, addressing the thorny issue of whether a contract remains valid when one party enters into it under a unilateral mistake regarding the price of goods. The case revolved around a misunderstanding during negotiations for hare skin purchases, sparking a legal debate about the very essence of contract formation: mutual understanding and genuine consent.


Mr. Hartog, a Belgian furrier, entered into oral negotiations with Colin and Shields, hide merchants, for the purchase of 30,000 Argentine hare skins. The initial understanding was a price of 4d per skin, a typical market rate. However, upon committing the agreement to writing, Colin and Shields mistakenly wrote the price as 7d per skin, significantly higher than agreed upon. Hartog, unaware of the discrepancy, readily accepted the written offer upon receiving it.

Procedural History

Upon realizing the miscalculation, Colin and Shields refused to honor the sale at the 7d price. Hartog, claiming a binding contract existed, sued them for breach of contract. The initial trial court sided with Colin and Shields, finding the contract void due to Hartog’s mistaken understanding of the price. Not satisfied, Hartog appealed the decision, arguing that his immediate acceptance formed a valid contract despite the misunderstanding.


Hartog argued that his acceptance of the written offer, regardless of the erroneous price, created a binding contract. He highlighted that his intention to accept at 4d per skin was irrelevant due to the objective manifestation of acceptance through his actions. He further emphasized the detrimental reliance on the contract he had placed by preparing for the shipment.

Colin and Shields, on the other hand, countered by asserting the absence of genuine consent, a fundamental element of contract formation. They argued that Hartog’s acceptance stemmed from a misconception of the terms and did not reflect his true intentions. They emphasized the importance of consensus ad idem – a meeting of minds – and argued that a valid contract cannot exist when one party operates under a material mistake.

Legal Analysis

The Court of Appeal upheld the initial decision, siding with Colin and Shields. Judge Singleton, delivering the judgment, acknowledged the general principle of acceptance forming a binding contract upon manifestation. However, he highlighted the exception in cases of unilateral mistake, particularly where it concerned a material term like price.

The court concluded that Hartog, aware of the usual price for hare skins, must have recognized the significant discrepancy in the written offer. They held that his acceptance in such circumstances did not reflect genuine consent but rather a “snapping up” of an advantageous offer he knew to be based on a mistake. This lack of consensus ad idem, they argued, rendered the contract void.

Impact and Implications

Hartog v Colin and Shields established a crucial precedent in English contract law regarding unilateral mistake. The case emphasized the importance of mutual understanding and clarified that mere acceptance does not suffice if it stems from a misunderstanding of the terms, especially when concerning material aspects like price. This established a protective measure against unfair outcomes and promoted the need for open and accurate communication during contract formation.

However, the decision also sparked some debate. Critics argued that it could potentially allow parties to escape unfavorable contracts by claiming a unilateral mistake, creating potential uncertainty. Nonetheless, the case remains a foundational reference point in discussions about mistake in contract formation, influencing its application in subsequent legal proceedings.


Hartog v Colin and Shields stands as a significant milestone in English contract law, offering a nuanced understanding of how unilateral mistake can impede the formation of a valid contract. The case highlighted the importance of genuine consent and mutual understanding, establishing a framework for ensuring fairness and accuracy in contractual engagements. While its implications continue to be debated, the case undeniably left a lasting mark on the legal landscape, reminding parties of the need for clear communication and careful consideration to avoid potential pitfalls in contract formation.

Why Choose Us:

Navigating the academic landscape, students often find solace in expertly crafted resources like our Law Essay Papers. Tailored to facilitate comprehension, these papers serve as invaluable tools for students, unraveling legal complexities and enhancing understanding. Elevate your educational journey with accessible and insightful Law Essay Papers designed to fortify your legal knowledge.

Cite This Work

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

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

Related Cases

Hutton v Warren – 1836

UK Law . Last modified: March 7, 2024

Introduction to Hutton v Warren: Hutton v Warren – 1836 stands as a cornerstone in legal jurisprudence, addressing intricate issues in both contract and tort law. This case study aims to dissect the background, legal nuances, arguments, procedural history, analysis, decision, and repercussions of this landmark litigation. Through an in-depth exploration, we unveil the complexities […]

Gunthing v Lynn – 1831

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Gunthing v Lynn – 1831 The 1831 case of Gunthing v Lynn explored the legal principles of offer and acceptance in the context of a conditional agreement. Gunthing, the seller, and Lynn, the buyer, entered into a verbal agreement for the sale of a horse. However, the payment terms were conditional, creating a […]

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd – 2009

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Gray v Thames Trains Ltd: Gray v Thames Trains Ltd – 2009 is a pivotal case in legal history, shedding light on the complexities of negligence law and the duty of care owed by transportation companies to their passengers. This case study provides a detailed analysis of the background, legal issues, arguments, procedural […]

R v Watson – 1989

UK Law . Last modified: March 28, 2024

Introduction to R v Watson – 1989: R v Watson 1989 is a seminal case that examines the intersection of criminal liability and mental capacity. This case revolves around the legal dispute between the plaintiff, represented by the prosecution (R), and the defendant, Watson, regarding the defendant’s actions and mental state at the time of […]

Sim v Stretch – 1936

UK Law . Last modified: March 7, 2024

Introduction to Sim v Stretch: Sim v Stretch (1936) stands as a seminal case in tort law, particularly in establishing the duty of care owed by individuals to their neighbors. This case explores the concept of negligence and its implications for liability in causing harm to foreseeable victims. Background: In 1936, Mrs. Sim tragically lost […]

Thompson v Foy

UK Law . Last modified: March 8, 2024

Introduction to Thompson v Foy: Thompson v Foy stands as a compelling legal case that intricately delves into the realms of property law, adverse possession, and trespass. Heard within the esteemed corridors of the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, this case serves as a pivotal example of how legal disputes over land ownership […]

go to top