• 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;

18 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

McRae v Commonwealth

bilateral mistake

- if there is no guarantee the subject matter

exists, mistake does not affect the contract

Coutterier v Hastie

bilateral mistake

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

- s6 Sale of goods act

cooper v philips

bilateral mistake

- mistake as to title

- legal impossibility

diamond v british columbia breeder's society

- 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

griffins v bryner

commercial impossibility

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

Great Peace shipping

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

leaf v international galleries

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

mistake to quality not operative

bell v lever bros

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

lord atkin "essentially and radically different"

raffles v wichehaulus

mutual mistake

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

sciven bros v hidley

mutual mistake

ambiguity surrounding the subject matter = void

smith v hughes

mistake as to terms of contract

- objective test: would a reasonable reader understand?

harlog v collins and shield

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

-sell product per pound, instead of per piece

dennant v skinner

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

cundy v lindsay

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

king north metal case

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

- lack of intention to contract with particular company

phillips v brookes

not void = the jewellers were unable to

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

shogun fiance

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

- took reasonable steps

saunders v angel building society

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