BCL Law Notes > University Of Oxford BCL Law Notes > Restitution of Unjust Enrichment Notes

Mistake Notes

This is a sample of our (approximately) 5 page long Mistake notes, which we sell as part of the Restitution of Unjust Enrichment Notes collection, a Distinction package written at University Of Oxford in 2014 that contains (approximately) 91 pages of notes across 13 different documents.

Learn more about our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment Notes

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.

Mistake Revision

The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment 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.



1. Where a contract is void or unenforceable, C will commonly be able to point to mistake or failure of consideration (ie. Rover International) BUT

2. As failure of consideration needs to be total, mistake is better (especially as it includes mistake of law)


1. Birks - mistake refers to the present. A mistake as to the future is a misprediction, which don't trigger restitution because C necessarily takes the risk of being incorrect about the future.

2. Seah - A misprediction doesn't involve an impairment of consent nor wrong data being fed into C's decision-making process

3. Dextra Bank v Bank of Jamaica - Privy Council expressly approved Birk's defintion


1. Used to be a supposed liability test for mistake that stated that: money was recoverable in an action for money had and received if the payor paid in the false belief that the facts were such that it was under a legal liability to the payee to make the payment

2. This supposed liability test was stated in Kelly v Solari and Aiken v Short

3. Kelly v Solari
- Relied on this test
- FACTS: C insurance company paid over money on a life insurance policy, apparently not realizing that the policy had lapsed because the deceased had failed to pay a premium. A new trial was ordered to


****************************End Of Sample*****************************

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment Notes.