1 | Page

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law

University

A Case Study
On
Bell v Lever Brothers

Mugdha Tomar
IInd Semester
Sec - B
201263

2 | Page

Contents
Introduction - What is a Contract ?....................
3
Essentials For a Valid Contract..
3
Agreement..
3
What Agreements are Contracts ?......................
4
Consent Definition of Consent [S.13]
4-5
Free Consent Defintion of Free Consent[S.14]..
5
Free Consentdefined.............
5- 6
Mistake Definition of Mistake
6- 7
Section 21 of Indian Contract Act,1872
7
Effect of Mistake as to Law..
7
Section 22 of Indian Contract Act, 1872..
7
Kinds of Mistake [S.20]
8-10
Bell v Lever Bros Ltd
Facts of the Case..
11
Issues Involved in the Case.
11
Proceedings & Judgement
11-12
Other Cases Where Bell v Lever Brothers Have Been Referred
to...
12-13
Conclusion.
14
Bibliography..
15

3 | Page

Introduction
What is a Contract ?
The term contract is defined in Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act,1872,as follows:
An agreement enforceable by law is a contract;
Thus for the formation of a contract there must be
(1) An agreement,and
(2) The agreement should be enforceable by law 1

Essentials For a Valid Contract

An agreement between the two parties. An agreement is the result of a proposal or an

offer by one party followed by its acceptance by the other.

Agreement should be between the parties who are competent to contract.
There should be a lawful consideration and lawful object in respect of that agreement.
There should be free consent of the parties, when they enter into the agreement.
The agreement must not be one, which has been expressly declared to be void.

Agreement
Agreement is defined as every promise and every set of promises forming the
consideration for each other.And a promise is defined as an accepted proposal.Section 2(b)
says: A proposal,when accepted,becomes a promise.This is another way of saying that an
agreement is an accepted proposal.The process of definition thus comes down in the
following manner: A contract is an agreement; an agreement is a promise and a promise is an

1Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg - 3

4 | Page

accepted proposal.Thus every agreement, in its ultimate analysis, is the result of a proposal
from one side and its acceptance by the other.2

What agreements are contracts ?

All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful consideration and with a lawful object,
and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.Consideration can be defined as when at the
desire of the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or
does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing,something such act or
abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.

Nothing herein shall contained shall effect any law in force in [India] and not hereby
expressly repealed, by ehich any contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence
of witnesses,or any law relating to the registration of documents.
Thus every contract is an agreement, but every agreement is not a contract.An agreement
becomes a contract when the following conditions are satisfied:

1.
2.
3.
4.

There is some consideration for it.[S.2(d) and S.25]

The parties are competent to contract.[Ss 11 and 12]
Their consent is free [Ss.13-22]
Their object is lawful.[Ss. 23-30]3

2 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg - 3

3 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg - 4

5 | Page

Consent
Definition of Consent[S.13]
Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 defines Consent as follows;
Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same
sense.
An agreement upon the same thing in the same sense is known as true consent or consensus
ad idem,and is at the root of every contract.
This seems to have been picked up fro apassage in the judgement of Lord HANNEN in the
famous case of Smith v Hughes.4
It is essential to the creation of a contract that both parties should agree to the same thing in
the same sense.Thus if two persons enter into an apparent contract conserning a particular
person or ship,and it turns out that each of them,misled by a similarity of name,had a
different person or ship in mind,no contract would exist between them.5

Free Consent
Definition of Free Consent [S.14]
According to Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 free consent is an essential
requirement of a contract.Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 defines free consent.

Free

Consent defined Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by :

(1) Coercion,as defined in Section 15,

4 (1871) LR 6 QB 597,609: 40 LJ QB 221: 25 LT 329
5 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg - 227

6 | Page

Coercion is the commiting,or threatening to commit,any act forbidden by the Indian Penal
Code(45 of 1860), or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the
prejudice of any person whatever, with the intension of causing any person to enter into an
agreement6
(2) Undue influence, as defined in Section 16,
A contract is said to be induced byundue influence where the relations subsisting between
the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and
uses that position to obtain an unfair unfair advantage over the other.7
(3) Fraud, as defined in Section 17,
Fraud means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract,or
with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent,
or to induce him to enter into the contract :

The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be

true;
The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
A promise made without any intention of performing it;
Any other act fitted to deceive;
Any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.8

(4) Misrepresentation, as defined in Section 18, or

Misrepresentation, means and includes
(1) The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person
making it, of that which is not true,though he belives it to be true;
(2) Any breach of duty which,without an intent to decive,gains an advantage to the
person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his
prejudice of anyone claming under him;
6 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg 177

77 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg 180

8 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg - 212

7 | Page

(3) Causing,however innocently, a partly to an agreement to make a mistake as to the

substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.9

(5) Mistake, subject to the provisions of Sections 20,21,22

Mistake
Definition of Mistake
There the mistake does not defeat consent, but only misleads the parties,Section 20 shall
apply.This section provides:
Where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to
the agreement,the agreement is void.

Example A, agrees to buy from b a certain horse.It turns out that the horse was dead at the
time of the bargain, though neither party was aware of the fact.The agreement is void

Section 20 will come into play:

(1)
(2)
(3)

When both the parties to an agreement are mistaken,

Their mistake is as to a matter of fact,and
The fact about which they are mistaken is essential to the agreement.10

Section 21 of Indian Contract Act,1872

9Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg - 200
10 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg 227 -228

8 | Page

Effect of mistake as to law

A contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in
India;but a mistake as to a law not in force in India has the same effect as a mistake of fact.

Example
A and B make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is barred by
the Indian law of limitation;the contract is not voidable.11

Section 22 of Indian Contract Act,1872

A contract is not voidable merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under
a mistake as to a matter of fact.12

Kinds of Mistake [S.20]

Mistake as to Person
Important Case
Jaggan Nath v. Secy of State of India(1886)13
A person, called S, a brother of the plaintiff, represented himself as plaintiff, and thereby
induced a Government agent to contract with him.
The court, finding that the Governments agent was deceived by the conduct of the plaintiff
and his brother as to the person with whom he was dealing, held that there was no valid
11 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg - 228
12 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg - 228

13 (1886) 21 Punj Rec No.21

9 | Page

contract.The defendants agent intended to contract only with Ss brother and not with S and
S knew this.14

Mistake as to Title or Rights:

Important Case
Cooper v.Phibbs(1867)
In that case an uncle had told his nephew, not intending to misrepresent anything but being in
fact in error, that he (the uncle) was entitled to a fishery, and the nephew, after the uncles
death, acting in the belief of the truth of what the uncle had told him, entered into an
agreement to rent the fishery from the uncles daughter, whereas it actually belonged to the
nephew himself.The House of Lords hed that the mistake was such as not only to make the
agreement voidable, but also liable to be set aside on such terms as the court thought to be fit
to impose.

Different Subject Matter in Mind:

Important Case
Raffles v. Wichelhaus15

The defendant bought of the plaintiff a quantity of Surat Cotton to arrive ex Peerless from
Bombay.Two ships with the name Peerless sailed from Bombay, one in October, which the
defendant had in mind and the other in December which the plaintiff had in mind.The court

14 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg 229

1515 (1864) 2 H & C 906: 159 ER 375: 133 RR 853

10 | P a g e

said: the defendant meant one Peerless and the Plaintiff another.That being so,there was no
consensus ad idem and therefore no binding contract.16

Non existence of Subject Matter

Important Case
Couturier v. Hastie(1852)17
The defendant was employed to sell the plaintiffs cargo which was on voyage.After the
defendant had sold the cargo to a third person, it was discovered that the cargo, having been
damaged by bad weather, had been sold at an intermediate port. The buyer repudiated the
contract and the defendant,being a del credere agent18 was sued for the price.19

Mistake as to nature of Promise

Important Case
Raja Singh v. Chaichoo Singh(1940)20
The plaintiff appointed the defendant to look after his cultivation and his affairs, as he had
become too old to manage them himself.The defendant asked him to grant him a lease of his
16 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg 238

17 (1856) 5 HL Cas 673 : 25 LJ Ex 253: 10 ER 1065

18 The expression means an agent who undertakes to be liable if the third person with whom he
contracts on behalf of his principal fails to perform the contract.
19 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg - 236

20 AIR 1940 Pat 201

11 | P a g e

land.The plaintiff agreed to it and placed his thumb impression upon a deed which was in
fact a gift of the land.The court held the deed to be void ab intio.21

Mistake as to Price
Important Case
BankuBehariSahu v.KrishtoGobindo(1930)22

Mistake as to Substance
Important Case
Sheikh Bros Ltd v. Ochener(1957)23
The appellant company, the lessor of a forest in Kenya,granted a licence to the respondent
to cut, process and manufacture all sisal growing in the forest.The respondent to cut, process
and manufacture and deliver to the appellant 50 tons of sisal fibre per month.But it turned iut
that the leaf potential of the sisal area was not sufficient to permit the manufacture of the
stipulated quantity and the respondent was sued for the breach. The agreement was helf to be
void.Their Lordships, relying upon the statements from the landmark case of Bell v Lever
Bros,came to the conclusion that having regard to the nature of the contract, which was a
kind of joint adventure, it was the very basis of the contract that the sisal area should be
capable of producing an average of 50 tons a month throughout the term of licence, and the
mistake was as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement.24
21 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg
245
22 (1930) 30 Cal 433
23 1957 AC 136 (PC)
24Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg
239

12 | P a g e

Mistake as to Quality
Definition of Quality:
Blacks Law Dictionary defines quality as
1. The particular character or properties of a person,thing or act,after essential for a
particular result <she has leadership> <greed is a negative quality
2. The character or degree of excellence of a person or substance,esp. in comparison
with other <the quality of work performed under the contract

Bell v Lever Brothers,

1932 AC 161:(1931) ALL ER Rep 1

Facts of the Case

Lever Brothers appointed one Bell as a managing director for five years on annual salary of
8,000 pounds to manage one of their subsidiaries in Africa.Much before the expiry of this
term his services had to be dispensed with on account of the merger of the subsidiary with a
third company.Bell agreed to retire on a compensation of 30,000 pounds.After this sum was
paid, it was discovered that during his term of service,Bell had made secret profits and was,
therefore,guilty of breach of duty which entitled the company to dismiss him without
compensation.The company,therefore, claimed the return of the money on the ground inter
alia that it was paid under a mutual mistake of fact.25

Issues Involved in the Case

25 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg
241

13 | P a g e

There were two issues involved in this case

Firstly, whether there was such a mistake which had made the contract void and Secondly,
could Lever Brothers avoid the contract on the ground that Bell had committed fraud by not
disclosing his acts of the misconduct while accepting compensation of 30,000 pounds from
Lever Brothers.26

Proceedings and Judgement

The House of Lords held by a majority that the mutual mistake related not to the subject
matter, but to the quality of the service contract. As regards the question of fraud due to nondisclosure of misconduct by Bell, it was held that Bell had no such duty of disclosure and
mere silence as to facts in this case did not amount to fraud, and the contract was not voidable
either on that ground.As regards the contention that the sum 30,000 pounds had been paid to
Bell by mistake and therefore the agreement to pay this amount was void.As regards the
contention that the contract was voidable on the ground of fraud due to non disclosure of the
fact of his own misconduct by bell, the same was rejected, as there was held to be no duty of
disclosure of such facts in the present case.27

The plaintiffs contended that they agreed to pay compensation on the assumption that the
service contract was one which could not be terminated without compensation, whereas the
true fact was that the defendant could have been dismissed without compensation.Referring
to this, Lord ATKIN said:
I have come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to decide that an agreement to
terminate a definite specified contract is void if it turns out that the agreement had already
been broken and could have been terminated otherwise.The contract of release is the identical
contract in both cases, and the party paying for release gets exactly what he bargains for.It
seems immaterial that he could have got the same result in another way, or that if he had
known the true facts he would not have entered into the bargain.
26 Bhangia R.K,Contract I ,Faridabad :Allahabad Law Agency(2009), Pg - 187

27 Bhangia R.K,Contract I ,Faridabad :Allahabad Law Agency(2009) Pg 187,188

14 | P a g e

The mistake was mutual as the jury found out that at the time of negotiating the compensation
agreement the defendant had not in mind his breaches of duty.28

Other Cases Where Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd

Have Been

Referred To
English Case
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Toavliris Salvage International Ltd.
[2002] 4 ALL ER 689 (CA)
In this case two vessels were hired to reach for a stricken vessel to save the life of its crew.It
was believed at the time of contract that the two vessels were in close proximity to each
other, located at a distance of 35 miles.Unknown to both the parties, the two vessels were at a
distance of 410 miles and it would have taken 39 hours for the rescue vessels to reach the
stricken vessel.The defendants looked for other vessels which they got cancelled the contract.
The Court of Appeal applied the case of Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd here
It was held to be a breach of the contract.The defence of mistake failed.The court said that the
mistake as to the diatance between the two vessels had not rendered the services that the
distant vessel was able to provide something essentially different from those which t he
parties had agreed. The vessel would have arrived in time to provide several days of escort
service.The fact that the vessels were further apart than both the parties had appreciated did
not mean that it was impossible to perform the contractual venture.29

Indian Case
Seikh Bros Ltd v Ochener

1957 AC 136(PC)
28 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg 241 ,242

29 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg 242

15 | P a g e

In this case the appellant company, the lessor of a forest in Kenya, granted a licence to the
respondent to cut,process and manufacture all sisal growing in the forest. The
respondent, in return, undertook to manufacture and deliver and them to the appellant 50

tons of sisal fibre per month. But it turned out that the leaf potential of the sisal area was not
sufficient to permit the manufacture of the stipulated quantity and the respondent was sued
for the breach.
The agreement was held to be void. Their Lordships, relying upon the statements in Bell v
Lever Bros Ltd, came to the conclusion that having regard to the nature of the contract,
which was a kind of joint adventure, it was the very basis of the contract, that the sisal area
should be capable of producing an average of 50 tons a month throughout the term of the
licence, and the mistake was to a matter of fact essential to the agreement.30

Conclusion
Thus the case Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd (1932) as seen is a landmark case as it has been
referred/cited in many judgements be it Indian or English cases.This shows the prominence
and the importance of the case and the judgement thus given.I solely agree with the
judgement given in the case that mere silence on the part of Bell did not amount to Fraud and
he did not owe any duty to disclose this fact and also I agree that during the time of
negotiating the compensation agreement the defendant that is Bell did not had in his mind
breaches of duty.Thus I agree with the judgement and Bell was so liable not to par back the
money to Leve Brothers as Fraud was not his intention at during the course of the contract.

30 Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10th ed,(2008),Pg 239

16 | P a g e

Bibliography
1. Singh Avatar, Contract and Specific Relief, Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.10 th ed,
(2008)
2. Bhangia R.K,Contract I ,Faridabad :Allahabad Law Agency(2009)
3. Anson, Ansons Law of Contract, New York : Oxford University Press,(200)
4. www.westlawindia.in