Mistake

Front 1

McRae v Commonwealth

Back 1

bilateral mistake

- if there is no guarantee the subject matter

exists, mistake does not affect the contract

Front 2

Coutterier v Hastie

Back 2

bilateral mistake

- since the subject matter did not exist at the time of contracting, neither did the contract

- s6 Sale of goods act

Front 3

cooper v philips

Back 3

bilateral mistake

- mistake as to title

- legal impossibility

Front 4

diamond v british columbia breeder's society

Back 4

- mistake to identity

- Claim failed since it was more about the quality of the subject matter. the horse was in the ring where defendant could see, so not reasonable

Front 5

griffins v bryner

Back 5

commercial impossibility

- contract made at 11am, but decision to cancel the procession was at 10am

Front 6

Great Peace shipping

Back 6

1. common assumption state of affairs exists

2. no warranty that it exists

3. the non-existence of state of affairs must not be fault of any party

4. the non-existence state of affairs must make the contract impossible to perform

Front 7

leaf v international galleries

Back 7

not void = he wanted a painting and he got a painting

mistake to quality not operative

Front 8

bell v lever bros

Back 8

in equity, mistake to quality may operative, and contract voidable

lord atkin "essentially and radically different"

Front 9

raffles v wichehaulus

Back 9

mutual mistake

if promises are so contradictory to make performance impossible, and courts unable to find common intention = void

Front 10

sciven bros v hidley

Back 10

mutual mistake

ambiguity surrounding the subject matter = void

Front 11

smith v hughes

Back 11

mistake as to terms of contract

- objective test: would a reasonable reader understand?

Front 12

harlog v collins and shield

Back 12

- defendant knew claimant made a mistake as to terms = cannot accept contract

-sell product per pound, instead of per piece

Front 13

dennant v skinner

Back 13

a party who accepts a bid at public auction cannot say identity of party is of vital importance

Front 14

cundy v lindsay

Back 14

void = there was a party whom the claimants wished to contract - showed existing business

Front 15

king north metal case

Back 15

not void = the mistake was not of the identity but to the attributes of the company

- lack of intention to contract with particular company

Front 16

phillips v brookes

Back 16

not void = the jewellers were unable to

demonstrate that they would only sell the ring to the rouge's false identity

Front 17

shogun fiance

Back 17

void = identity was of key importance since shogun did a search

- took reasonable steps

Front 18

saunders v angel building society

Back 18

the face to the face principle will only exist for people who are able to read documents

void = contract radically different to what she

believed = poor eyesight