Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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]
The law of mistake comprises a group of separate rules in English contract law. 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:
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.
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, Blackburn J set out his classic statement of the objective interpretation of people's conduct (acceptance by conduct) when entering into a contract.
The cases discussed are, Coggs v Barnard (1703) on bailment; Pillans v Van Mierop (1765) on the doctrine of consideration; Carter v Boehm (1766) on good faith; Da Costa v Jones (1778) Hochster v De La Tour (1853) on anticipatory breach; Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts
Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (Mich. 1887), [1] was a case that has played an important role in the evolution of American contract law involving the doctrine of mutual mistake. One of the main issues in the case was whether the remedy of rescission is available if both parties to a contract share a misunderstanding about an essential fact. [2]
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]