Snapping Up- The Case of Hartog's Hare Skins and Subjectivity

   The case of Hartog v Colin & Shields focuses on the problems arising when a unilateral mistake is made. When it is clear that someone has made a mistake in the terms of a contract, as a general rule, the other party cannot 'snap up' the offer and be able to enforce the contract. In this case, it was decided that the offeree had indeed recognised the mistake made by the plaintiff, Colin & Shields and had deliberately accepted the offer quickly and attempted to enforce it whilst being fully aware that the terms were based in a mistake. This case is similar to that of Centrovincial (1983), however, as in that instance it was unlikely that the plaintiffs could have reasonably been aware of the mistake it was ruled in the favour of the promisee.

In this case, the plaintiff has mistakenly written a price on an offer which was a third of the intended price for the product. The defendant recognised this yet still went on to accept the offer. The price which had been communicated orally prior to this was a better representation of the intended offer, so it was clear that the promisee was aware of the price which the offeror initially intended to offer, which was significantly higher than the price communicated in written form. It was held that the plaintiffs had made a mistake and that on the grounds that the defendant, Mr Hartog, could have been reasonably expected to recognise this should not be allowed to enforce the contract.

This case is demonstrative of the manner in which the courts can apply a subjective approach in certain instances. These considerations can be noted in the fact that the parties were not agreed in a subjective sense, their states of mind as to what the contract was communicating clearly did not coincide in any way. However, an objective interpretation might have taken the route that the agreement had been reached- thus should be enforced, as was done in Centrovincial. This illustrates that the courts are willing to extend beyond the scope of the objective approach in the interest of fairness to parties within a contract.