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]
Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts; Foakes v Beer [1] (1884) on part payments of debt (with a notable dissenting opinion by Lord Blackburn) The Hong Kong Fir (1961) on innominate terms, allowing the court remedial flexibility
The law of mistake comprises a group of separate rules in English contract law. If the law deems a mistake to be sufficiently grave, then a contract entered into on the grounds of the mistake may be void. A mistake is an incorrect understanding by one or more parties to a contract. There are essentially three types of mistakes in contract:
"Rescission" at common law. Rescission at common law (as distinct from rescission in equity) is a self-help remedy: historically, the common law courts simply gave effect to the rescinding party's unequivocal election to rescind the contract. Rescission at common law is only available for fraudulent misrepresentations and duress.
SJ Burton and MA Eisenberg, Contract Law: Selected Source Materials Annotated (2011) RE Barnett, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Contracts (2010). MA Chirelstein, Concepts and Case Analysis in the Law of Contracts (6th edn 2010) EA Farnsworth, Contracts (2008) LL Fuller, MA Eisenberg and MP Gergen Basic Contract Law (9th edn 2013)
As he was illiterate, this was a mistake as to the document signed and the father was successful in claiming non est factum. In the English case of Foster v Mackinnon , [ 6 ] an elderly man signed a bill of exchange but was only shown the back of it.
At common law, substantial performance is an alternative principle to the perfect tender rule.It allows a court to imply a term that allows a partial or substantially similar performance to stand in for the performance specified in the 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.