Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is mistake? |
A belief that can be proved wrong at the time of the contract. Mistake makes the contract voidable |
|
|
What is a misprediction? |
Something that can be proved later. The coronation cases - letting rooms for the kings coronation before the decision to postpone |
|
|
What is the difference between mistake and frustration? |
Both affect the nature of the parties obligations Mistake can render the contract void ab inito (as if contract never existed), frustration only terminate the contract |
|
|
When is mistake a ground for refusing SP? |
Webster v Cecil - refused application of SP as C had proved mistake Tamplin v James - D was granted SP as Cs mistake was due to own unreasonable behaviour? If Cs makes mistake that is harsh, D likely to be refused SP but if C is unreasonable in coming to be mistake then may be granted SP |
|
|
What are the policy considerations affecting mistake as a vitiating factor? |
Balancing security of contracts and will/consent of the parties - when formation requirements met then law should enforce contract not - if C has made fundamental mistake as to the subject matter/ID of co-contractor then arguably did not consent to putative contract but contract that thought they were making |
|
|
What are the three types of mistake? |
Common- both parties make same mistake Unilateral- Only C makes mistake Mutual- both parties make same mistake but for different reasons |
|
|
What is the law regarding common mistake to the subject matter? |
Of Law- old rule could not be vitiated on common mistake of law ignorance of law not defence but difficult to determine if mistake was of law or fact CA suggested in obiter that should be treated the same way as mistake of fact Brennan v bold burick |
|
|
Rules of common mistake |
Both parties share same mistake regarding the subject matter It is only operative when it is fundamental If both share mistake but will generally be void ab inito if the mistake is unreasonable then cannot rely on that mistake |
|
|
What is Res Extincta for common mistake? |
Both parties mistakenly believe that subject matter was in existence at time of contracting. S6 SGA - sale of goods have perished at time the contract was made w/out knowledge of the seller Conturier v Hastie - goods no longer existed so contract not binding McRae v CDC - HC (Aus) mistake could not operate as C promised that mistake could not operate |
|
|
What is Res Sua for common mistake? |
Cooper v Phipps already owned the lans so putative contract was void. |
|
|
What is mistake as to the quality/ ID of the subject matter? |
Case law shows will be rendered void if both parties make a serious mistake as to subject matter This renders the actual subject matter a completely different thing from which the parties believed it was The test to see if the mistake is sufficiently serious is strict - argue if a putative contract is rendered void it is because theres an implied term and that no contractual obligation will attach if subject matter is fundamentally different |
|
|
What are the rules of common mistake as to the subject matter? |
Bell v Lever Bros - HL majority argued not void for common mistake as contracts weren't vitiated but recognised that there was a fundamental mistake as to quality of subject matter which can render a putative contract void - the mistake did not have such value that w/out it parties would have made contract - Lord Thankerton CM cannot happen unless essential element Must be essentially different |
|
|
When will a mistake render the intended and actual subject matter essentially different? |
Bell v Lever Bros - without payment of compensation was essentially different from a contract of employment that could only be determined upon payment of compensation |
|
|
Is the test for mistake as to N/Q of subject matter objective or subjective? |
Arguably should be subjective as should question how serious the mistake is to the parties Applying a subjective test is difficult Lord Thankerton - In Bell suggested it was objective Lord Atkin - gave examples of what is not sufficient - some seen as v serious but not sufficient and leads to question if any mistake is sufficiently serious |
|
|
Cases for common mistake as to N/Q of subject matter |
Griffith v Brymer - held void for mistake as to subject matter as sufficiently different if room over looks procession or not Nicholson + Venn v Smith Marriott - judge said in obiter mistake would have been sufficiently different but D was liable under SoGA The Great Peace - suggested that mistake must be sufficiently serious to render the essence of the obligation impossible Dany Lions v Bristol Cars not fundamental enough to render performance impossible |
|
|
Where is mistake sufficiently serious? |
An extremely fundamental mistake rendered contract void ab inito at CL A less fundamental mistake rendered contract voidable in equity - But the great peace denied that sep equity jurisdiction existed Argued that earlier cases that est sep jurisdiction are in conflict with Bell v Lever Bros HL so are incorrect and not binding HL refused leave to appeal the great peace so probably correct to assume that no sep EQ jurisdiction |
|
|
What is mistake to identity? |
- Often dealing with two innocent parties that are victims of fraudster - but one must lose - Judges often let sympathies get better of them - usually discussed as a unilateral mistake |
|
|
What are the differences in face to face cases and non face to face cases? |
Cundy v Lindsay - Contract void as the name of the reputable company was vitally important to the contract Kings Norton v Eddie - merely voidable for fraudulent mistake as the company did not exist and so was not vitally important to contract F2F Phillips v Brooks - held contract nit void for mistake as C had intended to contract with person in shop Ingram v Little - putative contract void for mistake as clear evidence that ID of co-contracter was a reputable person which was vital to contract Lewis v Avery - contract not void for mistake as presumed that C intended to contract with person physically present |
|
|
Understanding the judgment in mistake to ID cases |
-Material facts in Phillips and Ingram are very similar - likely that sympathies got better of them as Ingram was elderly couple, Phillips shop owner -Alternatively if C mistakes ID this is sufficient but if mistakes attributes of e.g creditworthy this is not - Alternatively common mistake was made carelessly so C cannot rely on it although if judged objectively Ingram should not be void |
|
|
What if there is mistake to a written contract? |
When have written contract the parole evidence rule applies So external evidence can't be used to contradict the terms of a written contract Shogun Finance v Hudson - parole evidence rule will make contract void if person claimed to be some else Making it easier to avoid written contracts for mistake to ID |
