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 ...
The legal system in Sri Lanka comprises collections of codified and uncodified forms of law, of many origins subordinate to the Constitution of Sri Lanka which is the highest law of the island. Its legal framework is a mixture of legal systems of Roman-Dutch law , English law , Kandian law , Thesavalamai and Muslim law .
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.
Sri Lankabhimanya Christopher Gregory Weeramantry, AM (17 November 1926 – 5 January 2017) was a Sri Lankan lawyer who was a Judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from 1991 to 2000, serving as its vice-president from 1997 to 2000. Weeramantry was a judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka from 1967 to 1972. [1]
Dennis Paling, "McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission - A Forgotten Decision" (1975) 50 New Zealand Law Journal 174 (6 May 1975) J G Fleming, "Common Mistake" (1952) 15 Modern Law Review 229 (No 2, April 1952) "Non-Existent Subject-Matter of Contract" (1951) 45 Queensland Justice of the Peace and Local Authorities' Journal 149
L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 is a leading English contract law case on the incorporation of terms into a contract by signature.There are exceptions to the rule that a person is bound by his or her signature, including fraud, misrepresentation and non est factum.
This was a contract for the sale of goods. There was a mistake about the quality of the subject-matter, because both parties believed the picture to be a Constable; and that mistake was in one sense essential or fundamental. But such a mistake does not avoid the contract: there was no mistake at all about the subject-matter of the sale.
The matter really reduces itself to an absurdity when one considers it, because if we were to hold that there was a contract in this case we should have to hold that with regard to all the more or less trivial concerns of life where a wife, at the request of her husband, makes a promise to him, that is a promise which can be enforced in law.