Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken about the terms or subject-matter contained in a contract. [7] This kind of mistake is more common than other types of mistake. [citation needed] One must first distinguish between mechanical calculations and business errors when looking at unilateral mistake. [citation needed]
If the law deems a mistake to be sufficiently grave, then a contract entered into on the grounds of the mistake may be void. A mistake is an incorrect understanding by one or more parties to a contract. There are essentially three types of mistakes in contract: Unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 is an important English contract law case regarding unilateral mistake.It holds that when it is obvious that someone has made a mistake in the terms of an offer, one may not simply "snap up" the offer and be able to enforce the agreement.
unilateral mistake, objectivity, sale by sample, failure to assess sample Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 is an English contract law case. In it, Justice Blackburn set out his classic statement of the objective interpretation of people's conduct (acceptance by conduct) when entering into a contract.
Raffles v Wichelhaus [1864] EWHC Exch J19, often called "The Peerless" case, is a leading case on mutual mistake in English contract law.The case established that where there is latent ambiguity as to an essential element of the contract, the Court will attempt to find a reasonable interpretation from the context of the agreement before it will void it.
In any event, one commentator, Spencer, argued that Graucob's representatives knew Miss L’Estrange was making a mistake, and therefore should not have won. He argued refusal to apply the law on unilateral mistake where there is a signature comes from misunderstanding the parol evidence rule and non est factum rules. [7]
Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts; Foakes v Beer [1] (1884) on part payments of debt (with a notable dissenting opinion by Lord Blackburn) The Hong Kong Fir (1961) on innominate terms, allowing the court remedial flexibility
Tamplin v James (1880) 15 Ch D 215 is an English contract law case concerning the availability of specific performance for a breach of contract induced by mistake.The case established that if a person enters a contract under a mistake that was not induced by the other party to the contract, specific performance may be awarded against the person if no hardship amounting to clear injustice would ...