Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Collateral mistakes will not afford the right of rescission. A collateral mistake is one that "does not go to the heart" of the contract. For a mutual mistake to render a contract void, then the item the parties are mistaken about must be material (emphasis added). When there is a material mistake about a material aspect of the contract, the ...
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.
Sherwood v. 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.
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:
Typical examples of things of value are acts, forbearances, and/or promises to do so. ... Mutual mistakes, shared assumptions. Restatement, Second, Contracts §§151 ...
Anyone who has ever handled money has probably made a mistake with it, whether it was a $5 purchase they later regretted or a $50,000 investment that went south. That’s the thing about mistakes ...
Banks, for good reason, are strict about accepting and cashing checks that have any of the above mistakes. So next time you pull out your pen to write one in a hurry, we suggest you triple check.
A mutual mistake as to some fact which, by the common intention of the parties to a contract, whether expressed or implied, constitutes the underlying assumption without which the parties would not have made the contract they did, and which, therefore, affects the substance of the whole consideration, is sufficient to render the contract void.