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]
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:
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.
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
King v Wilkinson Court High Court of New Zealand Full case name King v Wilkinson Decided 1994 Citation (1994) 2 NZConvC 191,828 King v Wilkinson (1994) 2 NZConvC 191,828 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where a mistake is known to one party (often referred to as a unilateral mistake) when a contract is formed, under section 6(1)(a)(i) of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977. Background ...
Under the Second Restatement of Contracts, a party may assert a claim for relief from unilateral mistake regarding the terms or conditions of a contract or a liquidated damages clause. Relief for unilateral mistake may be granted if the mistake would render enforcement of the contract unconscionable.
Unilateral mistakes. Donovan v. RRL Corp., 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 807 (2001). Restatement, Second, Contracts §§153-154; Speckel v Perkins; Mutual mistakes, shared assumptions. Restatement, Second, Contracts §§151-152 and 154; Sherwood v. Walker 66 Mich 568, 33 NW 919 (1887) Nester v Michigan Land & Iron Co; Griffith v Brymer; Wood v Boynton
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]