Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken about the terms or subject-matter contained in a contract. [7] This kind of mistake is more common than other types of mistake. [citation needed] One must first distinguish between mechanical calculations and business errors when looking at unilateral mistake. [citation needed]
Mistake as to identity occurs when one party – usually deceived by a "rogue" – believes themselves to be bargaining with another, uninvolved, third party. [5] [6] In a typical situation of this kind, the contract will either be void for mistake, or voidable for fraud. Such a distinction depends on the manner in which the contract was made.
Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract.
Raffles v Wichelhaus [1864] EWHC Exch J19, often called "The Peerless" case, is a leading case on mutual mistake in English contract law.The case established that where there is latent ambiguity as to an essential element of the contract, the Court will attempt to find a reasonable interpretation from the context of the agreement before it will void it.
However, a contract based on a mutual mistake in judgment does not cause the contract to be voidable by the party that is adversely affected. See Raffles v Wichelhaus. [134] Unilateral mistake occurs when only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter. The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined ...
The Divisional Court held that Lindsay could not recover the handkerchiefs from Cundy. Blackburn J, giving judgment, held the following. [5]The rule of law has been thoroughly established—the cases are numerous, and I need not cite them—that where a contract is voidable on the ground of fraud, you may avoid it, so long as the goods remain in the man's hands who is guilty of the fraud, or ...
A "common mistake" differs from the "mistakes" that take place between offers and acceptance (that mean there is no agreement in the first place), or the so-called "mistake about identity" cases that follow from a fraudulent misrepresentation (which typically makes a contract voidable, not void, unless in a written document and concluded at a ...
Parties may rescind if they are the victims of a vitiating factor, such as misrepresentation, mistake, duress, or undue influence. [1] Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract (the status quo ante).