Mistake Flashcards
Example of the objective approach taken in unilateral mistake - not about what a party intends, about what they appear to intend
Tamplin v James
- mistake as to quality not term.
A mistake by A which is not shared by B may render the contract invalid in certain circumstances:
Genuine Ambiguity / Mutual Mistake
Raffles v Wichelhaus - the parties were at cross purposes (either unilateral cross purposes or mutual mistake)
A mistake by A which is not shared by B may render the contract invalid in certain circumstances:
B contributed to A’s mistake
Scriven v Hindley
- mistake as to quality not term. But still unenforceable due to inducement by seller
A mistake by A which is not shared by B may render the contract invalid in certain circumstances:
A is mistaken as to a term of the contract and B is aware of the mistake (2)
Hartog v Colin and Shields
Smith v Hughes
A mistake by A which is not shared by B may render the contract invalid in certain circumstances:
A is mistaken as to B’s identity and B is aware of the mistake
Dealings at a distance
1 void
2 not void (company did not exist)
3 void
1 and 3 intended to deal with the person who’s name was given
Cundy v Lindsay
King’s Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett & Co Ltd
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
A mistake by A which is not shared by B may render the contract invalid in certain circumstances:
A is mistaken as to B’s identity and B is aware of the mistake
Face to face dealings
1 not void - intention to deal with person standing there. Mistake as to attributes not identity.
2 void for mistake
3 not void for mistake but voidable for misrep
in Shogun- held that 1 and 3 correct but this is not law
Phillips v Brooks
Ingram v Little
Lewis v Averay
Common mistake only makes contract void where the subject matter of the contract is rendered completely different from what the parties had assumed
Kennedy v Panama New Zealand
For contract to be void, common mistake must be during formation of contract and sale
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v John Walker & Sons Ltd
Common mistake as to existence of subject matter following s.6 SGA ‘Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods, and the goods without the knowledge of the seller have perished at the time when the contract is made, the contract is void’
Buyer not liable for the price
Couturier and Hastie
common mistake as to existence of subject matter does render contract void as subject matter was completely different to what was supposed
Galloway v Galloway -believed they were married but were not
Common mistake as to the existence of subject matter does not render contract void if one party takes on risk of it existing
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission - implied they had taken the risk as to existence as they had the knowledge and expertise.
Common mistake as to possibility of performance will render contract void if performance is
- legally impossible
- physically impossible
- commercially impossible
Cooper v Phibbs
Sheikh v Ochsner
Griffith v Brymer (usually risk of cancellation should be on C but in this case it was commercially impossible to perform contract to it was void)
Common mistake as to quality of the subject matter will render contract void if it made the thing essentially different.
A mistake as to quality is not enough to render contract void if it is not fundamentally different
Here there was a mistake as to quality and it did render the contract void - it was fundamentally different as the machinery that the parties believed existed did not
Bell v Lever Bros
Leaf v International Galleries (no mistake as to the thing they were contracting for - same canvas)
Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord SA
Five requirements for common mistake to render contract void found in
Performance must be impossible (narrows the doctrine)
Great Peace Shipping
