Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mistake of law is a legal principle referring to one or more errors that were made by a person in understanding how the applicable law applied to their past activity that is under analysis by a court. In jurisdictions that use the term, it is differentiated from mistake of fact. There is a principle of law that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
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]
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:
The Australian federal law's Criminal Code [5] [6] describes most federal crimes, many of which were transferred from the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). [7] However, the Crimes Act does still define some federal crimes and others have been added in separate legislation for a variety of reason. [8]
Mistake (contract law), an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true Mistake in English contract law , a specific type of mistake, pertaining to England Mistake (criminal law) , or mistake of fact , a defense to criminal charges on the grounds of ignorance of a fact
Herbert Broom′s text of 1858 on legal maxims lists the phrase under the heading ″Rules of logic″, stating: Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, so does the law itself. [9] ceteris paribus: with other things the same More commonly rendered in English as "All other things being equal."
OCU law professor Andrew Spiropoulos agrees the Colorado court’s interpretation is a plausible, but it is an aggressively broad one.
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]