Rattlesdene v Grunestone

Rattlesdene v Grunestone 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.

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.