46c8c574-7295-4a5e-88b1-182f294b8745.doc 478 Raffles v. Wichelhaus, Court of the Exchequer, 1864 Does a latent ambiguity serve to show that there is no meeting of the minds and therefore no K? Issue Reasoning There is a latent ambiguity here; there was no meeting of the minds, therefore no binding K. Rule When there is a latent ambiguity, evidence can be provided to show that the different parties had different interpretations. Facts Raffle (seller) – Wilchelhaus (buyer) ∏ agreed to sell ∆ cotton that was coming from Bombay on a ship called Peerless. It turned out that there were 2 Peerless ships coming: one leaving October and the other leaving December. When the December Ship arrived Raffles tendered delivery but ∆ refused to accept saying: that’s not the ship – I meant the October ship Held Procedure P argues D argues Judgment for the ∆ ∏ sued for breach of K. It didn’t matter what ship it was We meant the October ship – he did not deliver when we were ready to buy.