enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Raffles v Wichelhaus - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffles_v_Wichelhaus

    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.

  3. Mistake (contract law) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)

    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]

  4. Sherwood v. Walker - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_v._Walker

    Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (Mich. 1887), [1] was a case that has played an important role in the evolution of American contract law involving the doctrine of mutual mistake. One of the main issues in the case was whether the remedy of rescission is available if both parties to a contract share a misunderstanding about an essential fact. [2]

  5. Mistake in English contract law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/.../Mistake_in_English_contract_law

    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:

  6. Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Reform_(Frustrated...

    The death of the testator is no breach of the contract, and the question therefore is, whether, there being no breach on his part, his executors can be made to return the premium or any part of it. Now the case cannot be brought within the rule of law relating to total failure of consideration, or mutual rescission of a contract.

  7. Parol evidence rule - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parol_evidence_rule

    The parol evidence rule is a rule in common law jurisdictions limiting the kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract [1] and precluding parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation ...

  8. Meeting of the minds - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds

    Meeting of the minds (also referred to as mutual agreement, mutual assent, or consensus ad idem) is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular, it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract.

  9. Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_Cases_in_the_Law...

    Upload file; Special pages; Search. Search. ... Download as PDF; Printable version ... Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract (2008) is a book by Charles Mitchell and ...