Certainty of terms CASES

August 31, 2025

National Case Law Archive

Law books in a law library

May & Butcher Ltd v King, The [1929] UKHL 2 (22 February 1929)

May & Butcher Ltd agreed to purchase surplus government tentage with the price to be agreed later between the parties. When price negotiations failed, the Crown refused to deliver further goods. The House of Lords held there was no binding contract as the price, an essential term, remained undetermined. Facts Following the First World War, the Government established a Disposals Board to sell surplus war goods. May & Butcher Ltd (the appellants) entered into arrangements with the Disposals Board to purchase tentage. Under a letter agreement dated January 1922, the Commission confirmed the sale of tentage that would become available

August 28, 2025

National Case Law Archive

Law books in a law library

WN Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932] UKHL 2 (05 July 1932)

Hillas agreed to buy 22,000 standards of Russian softwood timber from Arcos with an option to purchase 100,000 standards the following year. When Arcos sold their entire 1931 output to another buyer, Hillas exercised the option. The House of Lords held the option clause created a binding contract despite its imprecise terms, as courts should give effect to commercial agreements. Facts The Appellants (Hillas) and Respondents (Arcos) entered into an agreement dated 21st May 1930 for the purchase of 22,000 standards of Russian softwood goods ‘of fair specification’ over the 1930 season. Clause 9 of the agreement granted Hillas an