Mistake

Question 0

McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951)

Answer 0

CDC sold shipwrecked tanker to salvage company, the salvage company searched for it and found it did not exist, as the CDC had promised the tanker would exist in a specific place they accepted the risk that it did not - where there is risk allocation there is no mistake.

Question 1

Courtier v Hastie (1856)

Answer 1

Contract as to the sale of corn, unbeknownst to the parties the corn had deteriorated during shipping and had been ditched before they made the contract, res extincta, mistake as to the existence of the subject matter.

Question 2

Cooper v Phibbs (1876)

Answer 2

C leased fishery from his uncle, when his uncle died he renewed the lease from the executor, however it was later discovered that his uncle had left him the leasehold in his will, res sua, there was a mistake as to the ownership of the subject matter.

Question 3

Sheikh Bros v Ochsner (1957)

Answer 3

Bros made contract with O to harvest crop, specified size of crop in contract, however actual crop was smaller than expected, O couldn’t harvest what was promised, performance became impossible, mistake.

Question 4

Griffith v Brymer (1903)

Answer 4

Coronation case, when parties formed contract for a room the coronation had already been cancelled but they didn’t yet know, the contract became commercially impossible, mistake.

Question 5

Bell v Lever Bros (1932)

Answer 5

LB decided to merge a company, had to fire the chairman and vice chairman, paid them as part of redundancy package, later found out they breached their employment contracts and so the payment had not been necessary, held no mistake as the contract was not essentially different, it was still employment termination.

Question 6

Leaf v International Galleries (1950)

Answer 6

L bough a painting on the basis that it was by Constable, tried to sell it 5 years later and realised it was not, held there was no substantial difference, L wanted a painting and he had a painting.

Question 7

Great Peace Shipping (2002)

Answer 7

D hired the GP ship to offer salvage service to stranded vessel on the basis that it was only 35 miles away, transpired that it was actually 410 miles away, court held the contract wasn’t void due to mistake, the mistake did not create an essential difference, the ship could still help. Also in this case it was held that equity could not set aside contracts for unfairness, only Parliament could introduce such a scheme.

Question 8

Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864)

Answer 8

Shipping case, contract named ship however there were 2 ships of the same name sailing at different times, held that there was no agreement as the officious bystander would not be able to tell which ship the contract indicated.

Question 9

Smith v Hughes (1871)

Answer 9

Buyer wanted old oats, seller was selling new oats, court held the officious bystander would have thought that Hughes agreed to buy whatever oats Smith provided, whether they were old or new was a secondary characteristic, not part of the contract.

Question 10

Hartog v Colin & Shield (1939)

Answer 10

Sale of hare skins, price usually set per piece, seller accidentally quoted price per lb, buyer realised but did not tell him, the contract was breached because one party knew of the other’s mistake.

Question 11

Saunders v Anglia Building Society (1971)

Answer 11

Elderly woman hadn’t got her glasses, didn’t know exactly what she was signing, couldn’t be mistake as to nature of contract as the contract was not substantially different to what she thought she was signing and that defence should be reserved for people who really can’t tell what they’re signing.

Question 12

Philips v Brooks (1919)

Answer 12

Jeweller sold rings to man claiming to be famous business man, who paid with a cheque which then bounced. Court held that the seller intended to contract with the man in front of him, only made a mistake as to his ability to pay, not his identity.

Question 13

Lewis v Averay (1972)

Answer 13

Criminal claimed to be a famous actor, bought a car with a cheque which bounced, no mistake.

Question 14

Ingram v Little (1961)

Answer 14

Exception to face to face rule, elderly sisters were selling a car, man tried to pay with a cheque, they refused, he provided a name and address to prove his ability to pay, they checked these and they seemed valid, they accepted the cheque, it bounced, court held they intended to contract with the man whose details they checked, not the man in front of them.

Question 15

Cundy v Lindsay (1878)

Answer 15

Criminal purchased goods via contract made with letters pretending to represent famous company, court held the seller had intended to contract with the famous company, not the criminal.

Question 16

Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson (2004)

Answer 16

Criminal used another’s details to purchase a car on finance, the finance company received the fake details, the criminal never paid, was held that the company intended to contract with the individual whose details they received, not the criminal.

Question 17

King’s Nortin Metal v Eldridge (1897)

Answer 17

Where contract is by distance but assumed name doesn’t exist at all the contract is valid because the seller could not have intended to contract with a company that does not exist.

Question 18

Solle v Butcher (1950)

Answer 18

Case concerned whether or not a rent of particular property was included by the Rent Restriction Act, they thought it wasn’t included but it was, Denning held that even though under common law mistake couldn’t provide a defence, equity should step in to void the contract.