Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Smith v Hughes |
Unilateral mistake won't invalidate the contract if, viewed objectively, agreement was reached on those terms |
|
Harton v Colin & Shields |
One cannot take advantage of an offer he knows must have been mistaken, 'snapping up case'. if there is a mistake as to the terms of the contract, the mistake will have an effect |
|
Scriven v Hindley |
When it is impossible to say whether one or the other subject matter is being contracted for, the parties are at cross-purposes and the contract is void. |
|
Raffles v Wichelhaus |
In order to establish mutual mistake it has to be shown that there is such a degree of ambiguity that it is impossible on applying the objective test of a reasonable man, that the parties intended to be bound by one set of terms or the other. |
|
Cundy v Lindsay |
Where the parties deal by correspondence and -one party is mistaken as to the identity, not the attributes, of the other and -intends instead to deal with some identifiable third party, and -the other knows this, then -the contract will be void for mistake. |
|
King's Norton Metal v Edridge |
A contract cannot be void for mistake if an alias is used by the fraudster which does not belong to any identifiable third party --> mistake as to attribute and not identity |
|
Philips v Brooks |
Parties dealing face-to-face are presumed to want to deal with each other. |
|
Ingram v Little |
Similar facts to above but contract was found void. (initially wanted cash but relented) |
|
Lewis v Averay |
Ingram v Little was heavily criticised though not formally overruled; similar facts to Philips v Brooks and contract found only voidable |
|
Shogun Finance v Hudson |
Strong rebuttable presumption in face-to-face dealings following Philips v Brooks rule. Parol evidence rule operates for party to be estopped from bringing evidence to the contrary.
Lord Nicholls: Cundy should be overruled; the person who gets defrauded should bear more risk than the bona fide purchaser and it is absurd that a subsequent purchaser's rights should depend on the precise way in which the crook seeks to persuade the owner of his creditworthiness and permit him to take the goods away from him |
|
Bell v Lever Bros |
Courts can nullify a contract based on a commonly mistaken assumption but only if the mistake is sufficiently fundamental
Test 'both parties have necessarily accepted as essential element of the subject matter of the contract' -Compensation agreements were not void as the common mistake related not to subject matter but to the quality of the employment contracts. |
|
Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord |
Doctrine of mistake is narrow and only invoked in 'unexpected' or 'wholly exceptional' cases; one should first look at the contract to see if the risk of mistake has been dealt with, expressly or impliedly. -Mistake in equity may be considered after that of common law mistake
|
|
Courturier v Hastie |
Corn sold without parties knowing, contract void because of implied condition precedent that contract was capable of performance (Denning), but doesn't tell us whether the courts will imply such a precedent -If at the time the contract is made, unknown to the parties, the subject matter of it does not exist, the contract will be void (mistake was not mentioned but case used total failure of consideration instead) |
|
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (Australian) |
oil tanker on Jourmand Reef off Papua did not exist, it was found that the Commission contracted that there was an oil tanker and so there was a contract-->damages entitled |
|
Diamond v British Columbia Thoroughbred Breeders' Society |
Mistake about the identity of horse did not amount to identity but quality |
|
Sheikh Brothers Ltd v Ochsner |
license to cut and grow sisal on land, but land was incapable of producing so much sisal throughout the term of the license |
|
Cooper v Phibbs |
Appellant agreed to take a lease of a salmon fishery which parties believed was the property of the respondents, but it turned out the appellant, as the tenant in tail, was the owner of the property |
|
Griffith v Brymer |
Contract for hiring a room to view the procession of Edward VII; procession cancelled due to sickness one hour before contract was concluded |
|
Leaf v International Galleries |
The sale of a picture could not be set aside on the ground of mistake if parties entered into the contract erroneously believing the picture to be a Constable |
|
Solle v Butcher |
Mistaken assumption that flat was free from rent control, when lease was to run for seven years at a rent of almost of twice of what was payable under legislation --> lease valid in law but voidable in equity -equitable doctrine of mistake overturned by Great Peace |
|
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd |
Test for common mistake: a. common assumption as to existence of state of affairs b. no warranty by either party it exists c. its non-existence of state isn't attributable to either party's fault d. its non-existence renders performance impossible e. state of affairs may be the existence, or a vital attribute, of the consideration to be provided or circumstances which must subsist if performance is to be possible |
|
Solle v Butcher |
When parties are under a common misapprehension either as to facts or as to their relative and respective rights, provided that the misapprehension was fundamental, and that the party seeking to set it aside was not himself at fault, a contract is liable to be set aside in equity. -The court had the power to set aside a contract which is valid at law 'whenever it is of the opinion that it is unconscientious for the other party to avail himself of the legal advantage which he had obtained'. |