The Pros And Cons Of Contract Law

938 Words 4 Pages
A: David contracting with Elaine on the hire of his laptop is a shared error, which is a mistaken assumption by both of the parties on the matters of the contract. It also falls under the blanket of an error in transaction, where the contractual obligations made by each or both parties do not coincide with the reality of a situation. This clearly applies here as both David and Elaine were unaware the fact that the laptop ceased to exist before they entered into a contract with each other, and because they were both unaware this is clearly shared. The parties are contracting on the false knowledge that the laptop existed, and this is the most essential part of this contract and if they had known the truth the contract probably wouldn’t have …show more content…
Gordon’s main interest was to play Witches and Werewolves on the games console Fiona sold him, and both parties thought the console was able to play this game. However, this contract can be seen as an error in motive which is where cases have sound contracts but what they think are the facts are not completely true. What separates this from error in transaction is that these facts do not have to be the root of the contract, just potential reasons why the contract was formed: so whether or not the contract would have existed with the knowledge of the true facts. However, it is paramount to this case that the subject matter of the contract was the purchase of the game console and not the games console being able to play the game. Although both parties share the error that they believe the game is playable, this is not the root of the contract. If Gordon bought a games console that did in-fact play the game, he is still contracting to buy a games console and there is likelihood he would be using it for other things. The console being able to play the game is a misunderstanding of facts and not material to the contract. In case law, an illustration is shown in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd . The defendant hired the plaintiff’s ship to go to another ship in distress believing it was only 45 miles away when it was actually 441. Once they realised the defendant went to hire another ship and the plaintiff asked for a cancelation fee which the defendant refused as the close proximity was the root of the contract. The Court of Appeal held it was in fact not a fundamental condition of the contract to be in close proximity to the distressed boat. Although this is an English Case meaning it can only be considered persuasive, it is thought that this would be the decision made by a Scottish Court too. This application

Related Documents