This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

GDL Law Notes GDL Contract Law Notes

Mistake Notes

Updated Mistake Notes

GDL Contract Law Notes

GDL Contract Law

Approximately 560 pages

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Mistake

  • Three categories of mistake

    • 1) Mutual Mistake – where the parties are at cross purposes. Negatives the agreement as there never was a real agreement. Usually voids contract.

    • 2) Unilateral Mistake – where one party is mistaken and the other party knows, or is deemed to know, of the first party’s mistake. Contract may be void or voidable/

    • 3) Common Mistake – where the parties have dealt on the basis of a fundamental misapprehension as to the subject matter of their contract, consent is nullified

  • 1) Mutual Mistake

    • Sometimes said that two mistakes are therefore being made, one by each party. The parties are clearly not ad idem.

      • Most commonly the mistake will be regarding the identity or subject matter of the contract.

    • Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) – two ships called The Peerless left Bombay for Liverpool with a consignment of Surat Cotton. D believed the October shipment was the one they had contracted for. Claimant believed it was the Decemebr shipment. Neither knew of the other shipment.

      • Held the contract was void for mutual mistake.

    • Falck v Williams [1900] – parties corresponded by telegraph, using a code. D carelessly omitted a comma. Parties believed they were in agreement. In fact the plaintiff understood the contract to be for the carriage of copra from Fiji to the United Kingdom, whereas the defendant thought that it concerned the carriage of shale from Sydney to Barcelona.

      • Neither party could prove their understanding was more likely. The matter properly turns on proof, not fault.

    • Denny v Hancock (1870) – D declined to complete his purchase of a property having bid for it when he realised that it excluded three fine elms (the plans were vague).

      • Held that the defendant’s mistake was entirely understandable, that it had been induced in part through the carelessness of the vendors, and that it would not be just to compel specific performance.

  • 2) Unilateral Mistake

    • Boulton v Jones (1857) – D ordered leather hosing from Brocklehurst who owed him money so there was a set-off against the price of goods. Unbeknown to the defendant, Brocklehurst had transferred his business to his foreman earlier in the day on which the order arrived.

      • Held D had intended to contract with Brocklehurst. The “capture” of an offer by one to whom it was never directed will result in a mismatch between offer and purported acceptance so that no contract comes into being.

    • The majority of the cases involve a fraud:

      • Rescission is usually worthless as a fraudster has absconded/is penniless.

      • Furthermore, the fraudster may have passed the property to a third party who buys without awareness of the fraud.

        • If can rescind before this happens then third party has no rights (nemo dat).

        • If rescission is attempted only after the third party has obtained the property, the third party is invulnerable to an action by the misrepresentee.

      • If so may attempt to persuade the court not that the contract was voidable for fraudulent misrepresentation, but that it never came into being at all, therefore void.

        • But the law generally views that the defrauded misrepresentee did intend to contract with fraudster.

    • Dealings by writing:

      • Usually the contract will be the writer of the letters. Exception found in Cundy:

      • Cundy v Lindsay (1878) – Fraudster Blenkarn & Sons ordered handkerchiefs from plaintiffs, taking advantage of credit relationship between P and Blenkiron & Sons. He obtained the goods on credit, sold them on to innocent third-party buyers, who were sued in conversion.

        • Plaintiffs action succeeded. No contract had come into existence. Plaintiffs only intended to contract with Blenkiron and not Blenkarn.

      • King’s Norton Metal v Edridge (1897) – fraudster created false letterhead claiming to be a reputable company. Goods were sent to him and he sold them on. Plaintiff’s action failed.

        • Question of who did P intend to contract with. Answer was the writer of the letters. Where the fraudster proceeds by the adoption of a purely invented identity, the contract will be found to be with the fraudster.

    • Face to Face Dealings

      • Strong presumption that a contract will be found between the parties (seller and fraudster) who were physically present to each other.

      • Phillips v Brooks [1919] – fraudster in jewellery shop pretended to be Sir George Bullough and purchased ring with a false cheque. Seller consulted directory and was convinced to let him take the ring immediately and he sold it to a pawnbroker.

        • Plaintiffs action against pawnbroker failed as the contract was with the man in the shop not Sir George. Could not prove they would have contracted with anybody but Sir George.

      • Arguably, the law’s protection is misplaced. The distance seller has time to verify the facts on which he relies. The face-to-face seller is put on the spot.

      • Ingram v Little [1960] – the presumption above was rebutted (severly criticised). Sisters sold a car to fraudster who claimed to be Hutchinson. Refused to take a cheque. Negotiations resumed and authenticated his details at the Post Office. Cheque was dishonoured. Held that contract was void for mistake.

        • Pearce LJ: negotiations reached impasse when they refused cheque. After this negotiations of a different kind ensued, and they were negotiations as to identity.

        • Devlin LJ, dissenting, based himself on the presumption that a person intends to contract with the individual to whom he is actually speaking.

          • Proposed that a power to apportion the loss between them could appropriately be introduced by Parliament.

          • The Law Reform Committee considered this proposal in 1966, but rejected it as likely to lead to complex difficulties in...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Contract Law Notes.

More GDL Contract Law Samples