Mistake

Front 1

Common mistake; both parties make the mistake

Back 1

1: made in res extincta( subject matter no longer exists)

Galloway v Galloway; first wife was actually alive so maintenance payments were void for mistake;

Courtier v Hastie; contract for corn was void after corn was sold off on voyage

Front 2

2; impossibility;

Griffith v Brymer; was commercially impossible to hire put room once coronation was cancelled

Back 2

3: quality: extent to which a mistake in quality or value amounts to the contract being void for mistake;

Bell V Lever Bros: contract for the termination of two directors for £50,000 wasn't void even though they had forgottenly breached theirs;

This was followed by: Leaf V International Galleries; contract for a constable painting was not void as they were still getting a painting

Front 3

This was distinguish from in Nickolson &Venn V Smith Marriott; contract for Charles 1st napkins was not void for mistake, unless he could have provided evidence that, that was he was entering the contract

Back 3

In Solle V Butcher, Lord Denning created rescission of terms, in which even if the contract wasn't void he had the power in equity to change the price (rent of a flat)

Front 4

Great Peace Shopping v Tsavlins Salvage; contract for ship salvaging was unable to be performed due to ships actual location did not make the contract void for mistake as the ships location wasn't fundamentally different and Solle didn't apply as it was bad law

Back 4

Mutual mistake: parties at cross purposes "there was never a true agreement in the mods of the parties";

Tamplin V James: contract for pub believed to be with field wasn't void as it was made clear the field wasn't included;

Raffles V Wichelhaus: contract for the shipment of cotton was void due to unknown duplicity;

Smith v Hughes: contract for the sale of oats was not void because they were tasted;

Scriven v Hindley: contract for hemp was void because it was unusual for tote to accompany it

Front 5

Unilateral mistake: one side is mistaken due to a third party - usually a rogue;

Voidable for mistake if the title has not moved on however is only voidable for misrep of title has passed

Back 5

Cundy V Lindsey: contract for good from Blenkiran & Co. Was void for mistake because the mistake in address was reasonable to make;

Kings Norton Metal V Edridge Merritt Co: contract for the shipment of goods to overseas company Hallam & Co. Was not void because that was who he intended to sell to

Front 6

If there face to face:

Phillips V Brooks: contract selling of jewellery to a rogue was upheld because she intended to sell to the person in front of her despite who he claimed to be;

Ingrams V Little; contract for the sale of a car was held to be void as the ladies claimed they only intended to sell to who the rogue claimed to be;

However in Lewis V Brooks said this was bad law: contract for the sale of a car to a rogue who claimed to be an actor from Robin Hood was upheld because that was who they intended to sell too.

Back 6

Shogun Finance V Hudson: rogue used a stolen passport to purchase a car and then sell it on: was found to be void for mistake as it was a stolen identity and made over the phone

Front 7

Unilateral mistake not involving a third party: made over a term;

Hartog V Collin Shields: contract for the sale of hate skins was found to be void because the party knew about the mistake regarding price;

Centrovincial Estates V Merchant Investers: contract for a lease of a house was not void even though one party was unaware of the mistake

Back 7

Unilateral mistake over documents: made in non-est factum: not my deed; must be fundamentally different and not signed recklessly;

Saunders V Anglia Building Society: contract for the transfer of the house to the nephew was not void even though a third party changed the contents because the auntie hadn't read it;

Foster V MacKinnon: contract for the guarantee was void because the document was fundamentally different to what the man of feeble sight thought he was signing