Mistake

Front 1

Galloway v Galloway

Back 1

Husband and wife enter separation agreement believing they were married- previous wife was still alive- no marriage so no separation- no maintenance and was void for mistake.

Hint 1

Bigamy made void.

Front 2

Couturier v Hastie

Back 2

Cargo of corn made in London from Greece- unknown to party in London cargo had been sold off by captain as it was fermenting- contract for corn was for something that didn't exist and was void- buyer did not have to pay for corn.

Hint 2

Cargo of corn- didn't exist.

Front 3

Griffith v Brymer

Back 3

Hire room for coronation- by time of contract was cancelled- void as had no point- commercial impossibility.

Hint 3

Cancelled coronation- renting room.

Front 4

Bell v Lever Bros

Back 4

Directors terminate contracts for £50,000- both had breached so weren't entitled to buy out, claimed to have forgotten them- had to pay as they were getting what they wanted.

Hint 4

Forgot their BOC- directors.

Front 5

Leaf v International Galleries

Back 5

Painting believed to be by Constable- was not- worth less-not void as got what was contracted- that painting.

Hint 5

Constable painting.

Front 6

Nicholson & Venn v Smith Marriott

Back 6

Napkins described as owned by King- weren't- decided based on BOC- was a term- value is irrelevant- only importance was belonging to King.

Hint 6

Charles 1st napkins.

Front 7

Solle v Butcher

Back 7

Mistake about legal amount to charge- was not void but had power in equity to rescind lease and give tenant option to stay at correct rent- recission on terms.

Hint 7

Lord Denning- recission on terms.

Front 8

Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris Salvage

Back 8

Ship stranded at sea- mistaken as to position of ship- too far away to help- contract was void as ship in actual position was not an essentially different thing to what parties had contract for- said Solle was bad law.

Hint 8

Ship stranded at sea.

Front 9

Tamplin v James

Back 9

J bought pub at auction- thought it included a field- terms said it wasn't- didn't void contract as it was clear field wasn't included.

Hint 9

Field and pub- error of buyer=not void.

Front 10

Raffles v Wichelhaus

Back 10

Cotton from Bombay on ship called peerless- 2 ships of that name coming- mistake as to which was subject of contract- enough to void.

Hint 10

Cotton from Bombay.

Front 11

Smith v Hughes

Back 11

B thought getting old oats- worth more- was actually getting new- didn't say they were new but gave sample- not void.

Hint 11

Old & new oats.

Front 12

Scriven v Hindley

Back 12

B thought he was getting 2 lots of hemp- one was hemp and one tow- not usual to mix- sale particulars unclear- void.

Hint 12

Hemp & tow.

Front 13

Cundy v Lindsay

Back 13

R wrote to order goods- signed so appeared he was from respectable firm- goods sent to R who resold to L and then disappeared- C sued L for goods- title never passed- mistake over address was reasonable- L liable to C for goods.

Hint 13

Respectable firm- rogue.

Front 14

Kings Norton Metal v Edridge Merrett Co.

Back 14

K received offer from alias of rogue- suggested respectable firm- K had never dealt with before- rogue got goods, sold to E and disappeared- K intended to sell to alias- mistake as to creditworthiness- not void- voidable- E not accountable for goods to K.

Hint 14

Creditworthiness- rogue.

Front 15

Phillips v Brooks

Back 15

Rogue said he was Sir George- seller gave him goods- he sold them and disappeared- mistake as to creditworthiness- not void.

Hint 15

Face to face=not void.

Front 16

Ingrams v Little

Back 16

3 old ladies sold car to man who lied about who he was- checked id in phone book- tried to recover car- could as only intended to sell to person rogue claimed to be.

Hint 16

3 old ladies.

Front 17

Lewis v Avery

Back 17

Rogue claimed he was actor- studio pass to prove it- seller couldn't recover car as court said in fact to face deals you intend to sell to the person you see- regardless of who they claim to be- on Ingrams said was because ladies were vulnerable- was wrong and shouldn't be followed.

Hint 17

Actor in Robin Hood.

Front 18

Shogun Finance v Hudson

Back 18

Man claimed to be another real person- gave license and did credit check- arranged finance over phone- sold car to H. When finance not paid- realised rogue stole wallet- H was asked to return car- void for mistake as obtained by trick- would be different if face to face and not an actual identity.

Hint 18

Not face to face and real person.

Front 19

Hartog v Colin & Shields

Back 19

Fur trader negotiated to buy 30,000 hare skins- 4p per skin- when made offer was 4p per lb- far cheaper than intended- H knew this was a mistake and exploited it- void.

Hint 19

Hare skins per lb or skin.

Front 20

Centrovincial Estates v Merchant Investors

Back 20

Landlord offered rent at £65,000 but intended £126,000- didn't realise it was a mistake so was not void.

Hint 20

Mistake in price of renewed lease- didn't know it was wrong.

Front 21

Saunders v Anglia Building Society

Back 21

Mrs G agreed to transfer her house to nephew as long as she could live there rest of her life- nephew's friend pretended deed was gift to N- was actually a sale to the friend himself- Mrs G signed without reading- friend mortgaged to Anglia- he didn't give anyone money- didn't pay mortgage- A tried to repossess- Mrs G said sale was void non-est factum (he didn't own house, mortgage unenforceable- not void- knew she couldn't see- what she thought she was signing wasn't that different.

Hint 21

Old lady's nephew and his friend- can't read.

Front 22

Foster v Mackinnon

Back 22

Old man asked to sign guarantee- had done so before- was actually bill of exchange which plaintiff sought to enforce later- doc was so different from what he believed- non-est factum was available- relied on previous dealings- was void- also rectification- signed by mistake- doesn't reflect intention of parties- one can apply to change it to what they meant.

Hint 22

Guarantee was bill of exchange- poor sight- was void.