Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mistake of law is when a party enters into a contract without the knowledge of the law in the country. The contract is affected by such mistakes, but it is not void. The reason here is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. However, if a party is induced to enter into a contract by the mistake of law then such a contract is not valid. [3]
Unilateral mistake is where 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 that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake. [1] It is also possible for a contract to be void if there was a mistake in the ...
In contract law, rescission is an equitable remedy which allows a contractual party to cancel the contract. Parties may rescind if they are the victims of a vitiating factor, such as misrepresentation, mistake, duress, or undue influence. [1]
giving an incorrect legal instruction to a jury, failure to declare a mistrial when continuing with trial amounts to a denial of due process, or; conversely, granting a mistrial in a criminal case if the defendant objects, unless the grant was necessary to correct manifest injustice. hearing a case the court does not have jurisdiction to hear.
This law -related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Term used in contract law to specify terms that are voided or confirmed in effect from the execution of the contract. Cf. ex nunc. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio: ex nunc: from now on Term used in contract law to specify terms that are voided or confirmed in effect only in the future and not prior to the contract, or its adjudication. Cf. ex ...
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.
However, if there were a number of other witnesses against the losing party, the appellate court may rule that this mistake was of no consequence and that even if the evidence had been excluded, the losing party would have lost.