Mistake

Front 1

Amalgamated Investment & Property Ltd v John Walker

Back 1

For mistake to have any effect on a contract, the mistake must be one which existed at the time the contract was concluded i.e. the assumption must be factually wrong at the time the contract was concluded

Hint 1

building of architectural or historic interest; bldg. placed on list the day after executionIn determining the effect of mistake on a contract, the critical date was the date at which the contract was signed. i.e. 25th August.

In determining the effect of mistake on a contract, the critical date was the date at which the contract was signed. i.e. 25th August.

Front 2

Frederick Rose v William Pim Junior

Back 2

*At common law, in the interest of commercial usage, apparent contracts should be upheld and enforced.

Hint 2

A contract for the purchase of horsebeans in the mistaken belief that they were feveroles. Lord Denning held that the parties to all outward appearances were agreed and once they had done that nothing in their minds could make the contract a nullity.

Front 3

Raffles v. Wichelhaus, Scriven Bros v. Hindley & Co

Back 3

Where the words used are patently ambiguous , the court may declare the contract void on the grounds that there is no correspondence between the offer and acceptance

Hint 3

R V. W: Plaintiff offered to sell 125 bales of cotton to defendants which was to arrive by Peerless from Bombay.two ships named peerless from Bombay. Buyer assumed October ship sellers cotton was in December ship. Seller sued for breach. It was where one party is misled by the conduct of the other party to misunderstand the nature of the offer, the party whose conduct misled the other party may not be able to enforce the contract in which he intended.

S B v. HC : defendant bid for two lots believing them both to be hemp. Lot A was hemp and B was tow. Plaintiffs sued to enforce the contract and the defendant pleaded mistake. It was held that the plaintiff could not enforce the contract since the plaintiff ‘s conduct had contributed to the defendants mistake.

Front 4

Hartog v. Colin & Shields

Back 4

Where the offeree knows that the offer does not represent the real intention of the offeror, the law will not recognize the contract.

Hint 4

Contract for the sale of horse skins. Previous negotiations carried on by quoting the price per piece. Defendant mistakenly quoted price per pound. Plaintiff sought to enforce contract. It was held that The law will not allow a party to snap at an offer which he knows does not contain the real intention of the other party. Therefore there was no contract.

Front 5

Unilateral Mistake

Back 5

It exists where only one party to the contract is mistaken. Typically the other party is aware of the first party’s mistake but makes no mistake himself

Hint 5

Smith v Hughes [oats]

Tamplin v. James

Front 6

Boulton v. Jones

Back 6

Where a person makes an offer to a particular person, it can only be accepted by that particular person

Hint 6

Boulton had taken over the business of Brocklehurst with whom Jones was used to dealing. Jones sent an order for goods to clear the debt owed him by Brocklehurst.boulton supplied. Jones didn’t pay. Boulton sued. It was held that Jones offer was addressed to Brocklehurst personally. Boulton could not set himself as a contracting party with jones. there was no contract between Jones v. Boulton and therefore jones was not liable to the price of the goods.

Front 7

Boulton v. Jones

Back 7

Where a person makes an offer to a particular person, it can only be accepted by that particular person

Hint 7

Boulton had taken over the business of Brocklehurst with whom Jones was used to dealing. Jones sent an order for goods to clear the debt owed him by Brocklehurst.boulton supplied. Jones didn’t pay. Boulton sued. It was held that Jones offer was addressed to Brocklehurst personally. Boulton could not set himself as a contracting party with jones. there was no contract between Jones v. Boulton and therefore jones was not liable to the price of the goods.

Front 8

Cundy v. Lindsay

Back 8

It is only a mistake as to the very identity of a contracting party that will render a contract void.

Hint 8

The rogue, Blenkarn hired a room near a firm called Blenkiron & Co. he placed orders for handkerchiefs from Lindsay. He signed the order for his signature to appear like Blenkiron v. Co. he sold some of the goods to the defendant against whom the plaintiff claimed in conversion. The house of Lords held that Lindsay intended to deal with the well known firm of Blenkiron v. Co of whose existence they were aware and not Blenkarn of whom they have never heard. No contract had been concluded with Blenkarn and accordingly the property in the goods had remained vested in the plaintiffs.