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;
80 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
what kinds of circumstances can you not rely on the doctrine of mistake on |
correcting horrible business decisions when viewed in hindsight |
|
|
what qualifies for the application of the doctrine of mistake |
where parties to a contract individually or collectively make a fundamental, vital, essential mistake about a significant element of their contract or the possibility of its performance |
|
|
why are courts extremely unwilling to allow claims of mistake to succeed |
a successful claim renders a contract void |
|
|
what case says that if money has been promised but not paid it ceases to be payable |
Couturier v Hastie |
|
|
what case says that a successful claim of mistake can mean a contract is treated as if it never happened |
Bank of Hindustan, China and Japan, ex p Alison |
|
|
what case says that a successful claim of mistake can mean a contract is treated as if it never happened |
Bank of Hindustan, China and Japan, ex p Alison |
|
|
what happened in Re Bank of Hindustan, China and Japan, ex p Alison |
held that if money had been paid in pursuance of the supposed contract, it is recoverable as money paid for a consideration that has totally failed |
|
|
what case says that a successful claim of mistake can mean a contract is treated as if it never happened |
Bank of Hindustan, China and Japan, ex p Alison |
|
|
what happened in Re Bank of Hindustan, China and Japan, ex p Alison |
held that if money had been paid in pursuance of the supposed contract, it is recoverable as money paid for a consideration that has totally failed |
|
|
what are the types of mistakes |
common mistake mutual mistake unilateral mistake |
|
|
what is a common mistake |
where both parties make a fundamental mistake about a vital, essential aspect of a contract. |
|
|
what is a mutual mistake |
where parties are at cross-purposes and make different but fundamental mistakes about an essential, vital aspect of a contract |
|
|
when will the court allow a common mistake claim |
when the fundamental mistake renders a contract in effect impossible to be performed and none of the contractual parties are at fault for causing the mistake |
|
|
what is a mutual mistake |
where parties are at cross-purposes and make different but fundamental mistakes about an essential, vital aspect of a contract |
|
|
when will the court allow a common mistake claim |
when the fundamental mistake renders a contract in effect impossible to be performed and none of the contractual parties are at fault for causing the mistake |
|
|
how must the ambiguity be for mutual mistake |
fundamental and render a contract in effect impossible to be performed |
|
|
what is a mutual mistake |
where parties are at cross-purposes and make different but fundamental mistakes about an essential, vital aspect of a contract |
|
|
when will the court allow a common mistake claim |
when the fundamental mistake renders a contract in effect impossible to be performed and none of the contractual parties are at fault for causing the mistake |
|
|
how must the ambiguity be for mutual mistake |
fundamental and render a contract in effect impossible to be performed |
|
|
what is a unilateral mistake |
where one party to a contract makes a fundamental mistake concerning an essential and vital aspect of a contract. The other contractual party is aware of this mistake before a contract is concluded |
|
|
what is a mutual mistake |
where parties are at cross-purposes and make different but fundamental mistakes about an essential, vital aspect of a contract |
|
|
when will the court allow a common mistake claim |
when the fundamental mistake renders a contract in effect impossible to be performed and none of the contractual parties are at fault for causing the mistake |
|
|
how must the ambiguity be for mutual mistake |
fundamental and render a contract in effect impossible to be performed |
|
|
what is a unilateral mistake |
where one party to a contract makes a fundamental mistake concerning an essential and vital aspect of a contract. The other contractual party is aware of this mistake before a contract is concluded |
|
|
generally where does mistake only apply |
where the express and implied terms of contract, and representations and warranties made by contractual parties do not cover or clarify who should bare the risk of a mistake occurring. |
|
|
when does common mistake occur |
where parties to a contract are unaware that they have made a fundamental mistake about an essential element of a contract |
|
|
when does common mistake occur |
where parties to a contract are unaware that they have made a fundamental mistake about an essential element of a contract |
|
|
what happens if a party knows about the mistake before the contract is concluded |
then it cannot be a common mistake |
|
|
when does common mistake occur |
where parties to a contract are unaware that they have made a fundamental mistake about an essential element of a contract |
|
|
what happens if a party knows about the mistake before the contract is concluded |
then it cannot be a common mistake |
|
|
how must parties enter into a contract for it to be a common mistake |
they must enter into a contract under a common, false assumption that the contract does not have a fundamental, vital, essential flaw that makes the contract, in effect, impossible to perform |
|
|
what case established the legal test for a claim of common mistake to be successful |
Bell v Lever Bros |
|
|
what was held in Bell v Lever Bros |
a very high threshold for a mistake to be operative only where the mistake is so essential, so vital, so material or fundamental to the contract or its performance that it changes completely what the parties imagined the contract to be |
|
|
How did Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris clarify the common mistake test |
must make the performance of the contract impossible and there are 4 elements that have to be met |
|
|
How did Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris clarify the common mistake test |
must make the performance of the contract impossible and there are 4 elements that have to be met |
|
|
what are the four elements established under Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris |
1 common assumption as to the existence of state affairs 2 no warranty by either party that that state of affairs exists 3 non-existence of the state affairs must not be attributable to the fault of either party 4 non existence of the state of affairs must render the performance of the contract impossible |
|
|
what is Res Extincta |
where the subject matter of a contract does not exist but is erroneously assumed to exist as an essential requirement for the performance of a contract |
|
|
what case is an example of the subject matter of a case failing to exist |
Couturier v Hastie |
|
|
what case is an example of the subject matter of a case failing to exist |
Couturier v Hastie |
|
|
what case is an example of a common mistake about the ownership or title of the subject matter of a contract |
Cooper v Phibbs man tries to lease land he already owns |
|
|
when does mutual mistake occur |
where contractual parties are at cross-purposes about what they are agreeing to |
|
|
when does mutual mistake occur |
where contractual parties are at cross-purposes about what they are agreeing to |
|
|
how does mutual mistake differ from common mistake |
in mutual mistake parties dont make common erroneous assumptions they make different erroneous assumptions about the same thing |
|
|
what was said in Raffles v Wichelhaus which is representative of mutual mistake |
court held the parties were at cross-purposes and there was no consensus ad idem (meeting of minds) |
|
|
what case says for mutual mistake that the mistake may be one of omission in which a word or whole term was left out of an agreement |
Joscelyne v Nissen |
|
|
what case says for mutual mistake that the mistake may be one of omission in which a word or whole term was left out of an agreement |
Joscelyne v Nissen |
|
|
what case says that for mutual mistake the mistake may be one of erroneous inclusion |
Craddock Bros v Hunt |
|
|
what case says for mutual mistake that the mistake may be one of omission in which a word or whole term was left out of an agreement |
Joscelyne v Nissen |
|
|
what case says that for mutual mistake the mistake may be one of erroneous inclusion |
Craddock Bros v Hunt |
|
|
what case says for mutual mistake the mistake may be one of inaccuracy where for example the wrong period of time has been stated for performance |
Roberts & Co Ltd v Leicestershire County Council |
|
|
what case says that for mutual mistake the mistake may be about the meaning of words intentionally used in the document |
Re Butlin’s Settlement Trusts |
|
|
what case says that for mutual mistake a mistake about the significance of words, as where parties use words to express their agreement but words that are ambiguous can be rectified to achieve the necessary precision |
London Weekend Television Ltd v Paris |
|
|
what case says that for mutual mistake a mistake about the significance of words, as where parties use words to express their agreement but words that are ambiguous can be rectified to achieve the necessary precision |
London Weekend Television Ltd v Paris |
|
|
whats the difference between unilateral mistake and the other forms of mistake |
one of the contractual parties is aware that the parties are entering into a contract on the basis of a vital and essential mistake or erroneous assumption |
|
|
whats the difference between unilateral mistake and the other forms of mistake |
one of the contractual parties is aware that the parties are entering into a contract on the basis of a vital and essential mistake or erroneous assumption |
|
|
how might one party be actively involved in inducing the other party to enter into a contract on the basis of mistake |
through fraud/ misrepresentation |
|
|
whats the difference between unilateral mistake and the other forms of mistake |
one of the contractual parties is aware that the parties are entering into a contract on the basis of a vital and essential mistake or erroneous assumption |
|
|
how might one party be actively involved in inducing the other party to enter into a contract on the basis of mistake |
through fraud/ misrepresentation |
|
|
why would a claimant rely on unilateral mistake instead of misrepresentation when facts allow for both |
depends on the type of remedy/ relied they’re seeking typically where they are induced to enter a contract because of fraud and third parties are involved |
|
|
whats the difference between unilateral mistake and the other forms of mistake |
one of the contractual parties is aware that the parties are entering into a contract on the basis of a vital and essential mistake or erroneous assumption |
|
|
how might one party be actively involved in inducing the other party to enter into a contract on the basis of mistake |
through fraud/ misrepresentation |
|
|
why would a claimant rely on unilateral mistake instead of misrepresentation when facts allow for both |
depends on the type of remedy/ relied they’re seeking typically where they are induced to enter a contract because of fraud and third parties are involved |
|
|
what did Lord Denning in Lewis v Averay argue |
an inno purchaser who knew nothing of what passed was rogue should have his/her title depend on the mistake of others |
|
|
what did Lord Denning in Lewis v Averay argue |
an inno purchaser who knew nothing of what passed was rogue should have his/her title depend on the mistake of others |
|
|
in lieu of fraud who do the courts tend to prioritize the rights of |
third parties where they act in good faith |
|
|
what did Lord Denning in Lewis v Averay argue |
an inno purchaser who knew nothing of what passed was rogue should have his/her title depend on the mistake of others |
|
|
in lieu of fraud who do the courts tend to prioritize the rights of |
third parties where they act in good faith |
|
|
how do courts prioritize the rights of the innocent third party |
by presuming that we intend to deal with the person infront of us even if they turn out to be someone else |
|
|
what did Lord Denning in Lewis v Averay argue |
an inno purchaser who knew nothing of what passed was rogue should have his/her title depend on the mistake of others |
|
|
in lieu of fraud who do the courts tend to prioritize the rights of |
third parties where they act in good faith |
|
|
how do courts prioritize the rights of the innocent third party |
by presuming that we intend to deal with the person infront of us even if they turn out to be someone else |
|
|
what case said that the common law holds that the fruadsters physical presence identified by sight and hearing preponderates over vagaries on nomenclature |
Ingram v Little |
|
|
what did Lord Denning in Lewis v Averay argue |
an inno purchaser who knew nothing of what passed was rogue should have his/her title depend on the mistake of others |
|
|
in lieu of fraud who do the courts tend to prioritize the rights of |
third parties where they act in good faith |
|
|
how do courts prioritize the rights of the innocent third party |
by presuming that we intend to deal with the person infront of us even if they turn out to be someone else |
|
|
what case said that the common law holds that the fruadsters physical presence identified by sight and hearing preponderates over vagaries on nomenclature |
Ingram v Little |
|
|
for the presumption that we intend to deal with the person infront of us to be challenged what needs to be shown by the claimant |
the personal identity of the person they entered into a contract with was an essential, vital, prerequisite |
|
|
is it enough to show that the vlaimant wasnt just concerned about this person having certain attributed like the means to pay/ being creditworthy |
no, have to show that it was paramount that it was that specific individual |
|
|
whats an example of a case where the contract wasnt considered void under unilateral mistake concerning identity because personal identity wasnt the vital characteristic but it was creditworthiness that was vital |
Phillips v Brooks |
|
|
what happens if the inno party doesnt deal with the fraudster face to face and fraudster sells the product on to an inno third party who purchased in good faith |
Finance v Hudson the claim of unilateral mistake was successful because the lending company wasnt dealing with the fraudster face to face but through documents |
