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."
However, the defense of mistake is available to offences of strict liability such as drunk driving: see DPP v Bone [2005] NSWSC 1239. And it is the very availability of the defense of 'mistake' that distinguishes between offences of strict and absolute liability. Mistake of fact is unavailable in respect to absolute liability offences. [4]
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]
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
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:
In United States constitutional law, fundamental rights have special significance under the U.S. Constitution. Those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are recognized as "fundamental" by the U.S. Supreme Court .
However, if there were a number of other witnesses against the losing party, the appellate court may rule that this mistake was of no consequence and that even if the evidence had been excluded, the losing party would have lost.
For instance, in the case of Proposition 165, a California welfare reform initiative, California Governor Pete Wilson announced that his public campaign statements would let the courts know that a provision eliminating the legislature's power to override a veto was an "unintended error," and the mistake would be corrected, if necessary, by the ...