Draft.

Please review.

Assignment Contract
Professor: Tressa Gelle

Presented by:
1. Raza Hussain 2.Imtiaz Ahmed Khan
3. Emily Cooper 4. Uzma Khan

Assignment
Puccini bids on a load of Edam cheese being sold by Rossini. Puccini requires a
regular grade of Edam for his gourmet shop. Rossini has dealt with Puccini before and
knows the nature of Puccini’s business. Rossini is also told how to package the cheese but
he not told what grade of Edam Puccini wants. Rossini sells and delivers it. The price is
quite a bit lower than the usual price for a load of Edam. On delivery, Puccini discovers
that it is a grade of Edam suitable only for processing into cheese spread. Puccini seeks
to rescind the contract and get his money back on the ground that there was a mistake as
to the identity of subject matter.
Develop and present argument to support Puccini’s position and the argument to
support Rossini’s position. You may wish to share this exercise with another student with
one of you taking Rossini’s potion and one of you taking Puccini’s
Facts

Puccini bids a load of Edam cheese from Rossini

Rossini has dealt with Puccini and knows his business.
Puccini did not tell Rossini what grade of Edam he wanted.
Puccini discovered on delivery that the grade of Edam was different from that of he wanted.
Puccini wanted to rescind the contract on the ground that there was mistake of identity of the Subject
Matter
Rossini is called seller whereas Puccini is called buyer thereafter.
Arguments in support of buyer
1. On delivery the buyer discovered that the seller had supplied entirely different Grade of Edam cheese .
2.The cheese supplied was suitable only for cheese spread and not for the purpose the buyer purchased
the load of Edam cheese.
3.That was the fact the buyer did not mention the grade of cheese or purpose of use because he had been
Working with the seller as such he assumed that the seller knew what kind of cheese the buyer used to
buy. In other words by implication the seller knew about quality or grade of Edam Cheese the buyer
wanted.
The Sales of goods act R.S.O. 1990, c. S.1, s.15
“Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular
Purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller’s
Skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the seller’s
Business to supply (whether the seller is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied
Condition that the goods will be reasonably fit for such purpose, but in the case of a contract
For the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name there is no implied
Condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose.”

4.The seller did not inquired about any thing missing in the contract including grade of Edam Cheese
during the whole process so the buyer was satisfied that everything was going fine and according to his
demand,

6. The buyer gave instruction to seller regarding packaging. It was another instance where the seller had a
chance to inquire about the grade of edam cheese if he was not sure.

7. The lower price as charged by seller, was not an indication that quality of Edam cheese was
 different. The fluctuation in price was normal mechanism in business sector moreover the price
different was too small to prompt any change.
The seller did not inquire about the grade of Edam cheese before the delivery, if he was sure not
Rather he relied on his judgement on the basis of previous business experience with the buyer.
Judgement of seller was absolutely wrong and failed to identify the subject matter and he made
mistake regarding identity of the subject matter .Therefore the buyer is entitle for rescind the
contract.
“For a contract to be rescinded for mutual mistake, the mistake must go to the root of the
Contract. In order to constitute error substantialibous, there must be fundamental mistake of the
Subject matter”
Hyrsky.v.Smith {1969}2 O.R 360-365
Argument in support of Seller.
1. The buyer ordered a load of Edam cheese which the seller delivered as per buyer’s order
2. On delivery the buyer refused to accept the consignment on the ground that he ordered for
another grade of Edam cheese which he never mentioned before.
3. The buyer did not specifically mentioned the quality or grade of Edam cheese while placing
order
4. The buyer gave instruction about packaging but not about the grade which shows that he was
not specific about the grade of cheese.

5. The Edam cheese was the subject mate subject matter of contract which was correctly
delivered.
6. The quality or the grade of Edam Cheese was not subject matter because it was never
communicated to the seller
The quality or the grade did not change the identity of Edam Cheese
As such the buyer was not entitled for rescind of contract.
Hughes bargained for oats and he got oats. That mistaken about the quality was matter not
Smithv.Hughes (1871) Lr6 QB597

______________________________________________________________________________
References: web site www.canlii.org Text book