Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A contract vitiated by misrepresentation is voidable and not void ab initio. The misled party may either (i) rescind, or (ii) affirm and continue to be bound. The misled party may either (i) rescind, or (ii) affirm and continue to be bound.
Typical grounds for a contract being voidable include coercion, undue influence, mental incompetence, intoxication, misrepresentation or fraud. [1] A contract made by a minor is often voidable, but a minor can only avoid a contract during his or her minority status and for a reasonable time after he reaches the age of majority.
For example, an agreement between drug dealers and buyers is a void agreement simply because the terms of the contract are illegal. In such a case, neither party can go to court to enforce the contract. A void agreement is void ab initio, i e from the beginning while a voidable contract can be voidable by one or all of the parties.
Hence the contract is voidable. Collateral mistakes will not afford the right of rescission. A collateral mistake is one that "does not go to the heart" of the contract. For a mutual mistake to render a contract void, then the item the parties are mistaken about must be material (emphasis added). When there is a material mistake about a ...
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]
A contract made inter praesentes occurs when the parties meet face-to-face. Cases: Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243; In a contract was made face to face, the court presumed that the seller intended to contract with the person in front of them, so the contract was not void for mistake to identity. Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31
The Divisional Court held that Lindsay could not recover the handkerchiefs from Cundy. Blackburn J, giving judgment, held the following. [5]The rule of law has been thoroughly established—the cases are numerous, and I need not cite them—that where a contract is voidable on the ground of fraud, you may avoid it, so long as the goods remain in the man's hands who is guilty of the fraud, or ...
A contract is null from the beginning if it seriously offends law or public policy in contrast to a contract which is merely voidable at the election of one of the parties to the contract. In practical terms, 'void' is usually used in contradistinction to ' voidable ' and ' unenforceable ', the principal difference being that an action which is ...