Rose & Frank v JR Crompton & Bros [1924]

Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] AC 445 is significant in the context of English contract law, particularly addressing the question of the intention to create legal relations in commercial arrangements. It also exemplifies the application of the Blue Pencil Rule, a legal doctrine allowing courts to modify or disregard specific clauses in a contract to render it enforceable.

Rose & Frank Co, the exclusive US distributor of JR Crompton's carbon paper products, entered into a document in 1913. Notably, this document explicitly stated that it was not a formal or legal agreement and would not be subject to legal jurisdiction. However, the relationship between the parties deteriorated when Crompton refused to fulfil some of the orders, leading to a legal dispute initiated by Rose & Frank Co seeking enforcement of the agreement.

At the first instance, the court held that the clause stating the non-legally binding nature of the agreement was repugnant and contrary to public policy. Consequently, the court deemed the document a legally binding contract.

Upon appeal, Scrutton LJ asserted that parties have the capacity to form agreements not intended to create legal relations, particularly in social and family contexts. Atkin LJ, while agreeing that there was no contract, dissented on the order. He emphasised the clear mutual intention of the parties not to enter into legal obligations and acknowledged the clause as dominant and not repugnant.

Atkin LJ's dissent delved into the necessity of a common intention to create legal obligations, either expressly or impliedly communicated. He regarded the clause as a clear expression of the mutual intention not to enter into legal obligations, distinguishing it from cases of offer and acceptance of hospitality or agreements within family life.

The judgment also touched upon the issue of rescission, with Atkin LJ indicating that it was a question of fact. However, he believed that the court lacked sufficient information to make a determination on this matter.

However, in the House of Lords, Lord Phillimore held that the arrangement of 1913 was not a legally binding contract. He clarified that all previous agreements were determined by mutual consent at the time of the 1913 arrangement. Nevertheless, the orders given and accepted were deemed to constitute enforceable contracts of sale.

In conclusion, Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd offers valuable insights into the importance of parties' intentions in creating legally binding agreements, showcases the flexibility of the Blue Pencil Rule, and illustrates the nuanced approach to intention in commercial agreements. Atkin LJ's dissent emphasises the centrality of mutual intention, and the House of Lords' decision clarifies the legal status of the 1913 arrangement and subsequent orders.
Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding.
Speed up your revision with us now👇

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.