• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

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;

22 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Galloway v Galloway

couple entered into a separation agreement thinking they were married. However previous wife alive. The matter existed no longer

Couturier v Hasite
Sale of corn

-Corn was being shipped from Greece, by the time it reached London, it had fermented, so the captain sold it off

-The contract for the sale of corn never existed

Griffith v Brymer


A contract where hiring of building.

At the end of the contract "if God permits"

This genuinely was a bad contract.

The building burned down and it was impossible to perform the contract.

The judged added in the obiter that if you enter into a bad contract, it is not liable

Bell v Lever Bros
Two directors entered into a contract to terminate their contract

-In fact both had breached the contract and would have allowed to be terminated without compensation.

Later tried to sue for the compensation money.

HOL judge said- employers were mistaken their contractual statute. Therefore it didn't matter that lost compensation, the release of the directors was indented

leaf v International Galleries
Sale of painting that both parties believed it to be constable, but which in fact was not.
The contract was not void as they wanted to buy an painting and got what they wanted.

Could have gone for misrep- due to the laspe of time
Nicholsan & Venn v smith Marriott
Napkins which were described as the property of Charles 1st - were sold

- Turned out to be Georgian, which was less cheaper

-Made on the obiter that it could have been seen as void for mistake, -They showed that they were merely after antique napkins

-Mistaken over the value

Solle v Butcher
-Landlord and tenant agreed a price to rent flat.

-They were mistaken about the amount that could be legally charged.

courts said that contract was not void as they had the power of equity to rescind the lease and give the tenant the option to stay the correct rent. (Denning) (per incuruim) (Young Bristol)

-To aviod the harsh contract without making it void.

Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris salvage
Ship was stranded at sea- danger of sinking.

Contract was made between parties of another ship.

Ship moved

Contract of quality ( position of the ship)

Of Solle- Equity and renegotiate the price.

Outcome- not be void - ship actual position didn't matter

Tamplin v james
Pub brought at auction

- The field wasn't included

-Mistake didn't make the contract void as they were clear the field was part of the contract

raffles v Bombay
Shipload of cotton from bombay

- 2 ships of cotton

Mistake as to the subject matter of the contract- enough mistake to make the contract void for mistake

Scriven v Hindley
Though he was buying 2 hemps- but was buying and one was tow

reasonable mistak

Smith v Hughes
Mistake in the sell of oats

- New oats instead of old oats

The seller didn't disclose anything - correct samples of oats

Cundy v Lindsay
-False identify

Rogu with a similar name of a company wrote to wood street goods.

The goods were resold by rogue, which eventually the originally company brought it

intended to sell to Blenkiron not Blenkarn- mistake over address was reasonable

Kings Norton Metal v Edridge Merrett
No fundamental difference- wasn't a face to face contract

A rogue wrote a letter saying how good they are in a different country

When rouge obtained the goods he sold them and disappeared

misrep of the size of the firm only led to the mistake of creditworthiness. Contract was voidable for mistake

Phillips v Brooks
Jewellers shoop , picked out goods to buyRouge claimed to be Some else
Not a mistake of identity but of credit worthiness, not void but voidable.no fundamental difference

Ingrams v Little

-Three elderly ladies sold car to a man (lied about himself)

-Checked phone book

-Checked bounced

-Courts said recovery of car

-Rogue claimed-fundamental difference

Lewis v Avery

-Claimed actress to be played Robin Hood-studio pass to prove

-Face to face- seller intents to sell person in front of them

-distinguished from Ingrams - as empathy for old ladies

Shogun Finance v Hudson

-Stolen identity

-Showrooms of Mitsubu- shogun

arrived at showroom claiming Patel, then did credit check

-Arranged finance over phone. Drove off, then care was sold off

Mistake- finance agreement obtained by trick- presenting flase documents- void for mistake

Hartog v Colin & Shields

-Fur trader negotiated with English Merchants

-Price discussed - and final offer made it way cheaper than expected or intended

Mistake was well known

Centrovincial Estates v Merchants Investors

Landlord offered to renew a lease £65,000

instead of £126,000 - tenant did not realize the mistake

Saunders V Anglia Building Society

Non est factum -

fundamental difference

no carelessness

-Mrs G widow - nephew to raise money

signed without reading

did not repay mortgage

void for non est factum

Foster v Mackinson

Elder man not sight

sign a guarantee

the document was so different from what he believed - non est factum