Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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] For example, Harjoth and Danny make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is ...
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.
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 is an important English contract law case regarding unilateral mistake.It holds that when it is obvious that someone has made a mistake in the terms of an offer, one may not simply "snap up" the offer and be able to enforce the agreement.
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:
Part I – Introduction; Part 2 – Formation of Contract Chapter 2 – The Agreement, Chapter 3 – Consideration, Chapter 4 – Form, Chapter 5 – Mistake, Chapter 6 – Misrepresentation, Chapter 7 – Duress and Undue Influence
Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1931] UKHL 2 is an English contract law case decided by the House of Lords.Within the field of mistake in English law, it holds that common mistake does not lead to a void contract unless the mistake is fundamental to the identity of the contract.
A Burrows, Cases and Materials on Contract Law (2nd edn Hart, Oxford 2009) ch 11; H Collins, Contract law in context (4th edn CUP, Cambridge 2004) E McKendrick, Contract Law (8th edn Palgrave, London 2009) ch 13; E Peel, Treitel: The Law of Contract (7th edn Thompson, London 2008) ch 9; M Chen-Wishart, Contract Law (6th edn OUP 2018) ch 5; Articles
Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly, 331 N.W.2d 203 (1982) is a US contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan. It used a risk of loss analysis to justify the denial of rescission as a contract remedy despite the presence of mutual mistake. [1]