Is There Actually A Doctrine Of Mistake At All Notes
This is a short sample from our Contract Law Notes collection which contains 475 pages of notes in total. If you find this useful you might like to consider purchasing our Contract Law Notes.
|Pages In Full Document||3|
|Original Document File Type:||Word (Docx) (Conversion to PDF is available post purchase if required)|
|Price:||Part of a package Contract Law Notes containing 199 other documents which retails for £24.99.|
The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.
Is There Actually A Doctrine Of Mistake At All RevisionThe following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
Is there actually a doctrine of mistake at all?
The "offer and acceptance" view • With unilateral mistake o Slade: if parties are said to have objectively agreed on something and neither is aware of the others actual intentions Then the contract is formed • There is no question of "mistake" unless the conduct of that mistake shows that there is objectively, to a reasonable man, no agreement. o Only where V meant to make an offer or acceptance in one sense And E is aware of this • Can E not hold V to the contract o E.g. Hartog v Colin & Shield's: Singleton J: the offer was wrongly expressed and D by their evidence have satisfied me • that C could not reasonably believe the offer contained the offeror's real intentions • Slade: decision is based not on C's knowledge of the seller's mistake o But because there was no consensus of the terms of the contract • Moi: takes a rather simplistic view of things - surely courts were also looking unfavourably on the "snapping up" of the offer by C which showed clear knowledge of D's mistake o Both, on paper, were agreeing to the same thing. The "implied terms" view • Questions of mistake = merely questions of risk allocation which in turn are questions of construction o Slade's view If a contract is avoided then this is because parties have themselves provided this solution impliedly from the contract itself • Not because the law has imposed this - courts can only discover what to do from the intentions of the parties themselves Bell v Lever Bros: • Lord Atkin: the proposition does not amount to more than this - o that if the contract expressly or impliedly contains a term that a particular assumption is a condition of the contract The contract is avoided if the assumption is not true • Policy reasons dictate this should be the case: o Mistake should not be used to get out of a bad bargain/undermine risk allocation of contract o Need to promote certainty by upholding parties' apparent (objective) intention o Need to reward more knowledgeable parties and allow them to take advantage of the less knowledgeable in a free market system o Means courts don't appear to be interfering with the contract • Rejection of this view o Chen Wishart:
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
Buy the full version of these notes and essays alongside much more in our Contract Law Notes.