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]

References[]

^ Handford, P. (2010) 'Intentional Negligence: A Contradiction in Terms?, Sydney Law Review, p. 34
^ Lunney, M. and Olipant, K. (2013), Tort Law: Texts and Materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 5

[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

[1]

[2]

Rattlesdene v Grunestone

Contents

Facts[]

Commentary[]

See also[]

References[]