Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Is There Actually A Doctrine Of Mistake At All Notes

Law Notes > Contract Law Notes

This is an extract of our Is There Actually A Doctrine Of Mistake At All document, which we sell as part of our Contract Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

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

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:

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

More Contract Law Samples