Mistake in Law - page 3
Keywords: Mistake Law cases terms high graded
By sammy14 on 30/06/2007
Level: Bachelor Honours Degree (BA, BEng, BSc etc)
Page Number: 3 of 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5the subject matter must be radically and essentially different to that expected by both parties. For the guarantor to grant the guarantee the non existence of the machines had to be of utmost significance. The contract was like this declared void in the circumstances and the res extincta doctrine applied.
A mistake will also be operative in making a contract void where it is a mistake regarding the real ownership to goods at the time the contract was formed. It is void when a party enters as a buyer, when unknown to either party he actually owns the title to the goods. It is clearly operative because nobody would contract in buying something for which they were the owners to. A case to illustrate this is Cooper v Phibbs ; here a person took a lease of land which unknown to either party had in fact belonged to him. It was held that the contract was void as it was legally impossible to do such a thing.
All of the above mistakes were bilateral and specifically mutual mistakes where neither of the parties was aware of what was the true nature of their contracting. A mistake can also be operative where the mistake is to the knowledge of one of the contracting parties. This is known as a unilateral mistake and can occur in various situations, but most commonly it is one concerning the identity of one of the parties. That is to say, where a party contracts with another believing him to be whom he really intends to deal with. It follows that the identity of the person must be imperative and material to the making of the contract. In the case of Cundy v Lindsay it was held that there was no valid contract between the respondents and the rogue, Blenkarn, because the respondents had never intended to deal with him but someone genuinely called Messrs Blenkiron. The contract was like this rendered void and so no property in the goods was passed to Blenkarn and so he could not have passed a good title to anyone else.
On the other hand, there would not be so much of a cross purpose between the parties so as to invalidate consent if it was a mistake by one party as to the attribute of the other. In Kings Norton Metal Co v Edridge, Merrett & Co Ltd rogue called Wallis contracted
Last 5 comments…
There have been no comments posted for this article, but you need to register if you want to be the first!