Rattlesdene v Grunestone

Rattlesdene v Grunestone (YB 10 Edw II (54 SS) 140) is a 1317 case in English law.

Facts

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had sold him a bottle of wine but, before delivery, drew off much of the wine and replaced it with salt water.[1]

Commentary

The academics Mark Lunney and Ken Oliphant argue that in reality the case was likely the result of a shipping accident with the facts fabricated to allow the court to circumvent the vi et armis requirements which required that loss be suffered 'with force and arms' if a claim was to be brought.[2]

gollark: Yes, indeed.
gollark: It's the same line count, but much clearer.
gollark: ```luaif cmd=="exit"or cmd=="quit"then error()end```
gollark: Amazing!
gollark: ~~that's type system~~

See also

References
  1. Handford, P. (2010) 'Intentional Negligence: A Contradiction in Terms?, Sydney Law Review, p. 34
  2. Lunney, M. and Olipant, K. (2013), Tort Law: Texts and Materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 5
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.