Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Unilateral Mistake - Coggle Diagram

- - - - This decision is authority for the fact that, where the parties negotiate at a distance, it may be easier to establish an identity mistake and that identity was of crucial importance because the identity of the person placing an order has to be known in order to dispatch the goods. To put it in terms of offer and acceptance: the offer must be made to the person named on the written order form, so that only that person can accept.
      - In Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459, the rogue set up business under the name ‘Blenkarn’ at 37 Wood Street. A very respectable company called Blenkiron and Co. traded at 123 Wood Street. The rogue ordered goods from the claimants, making his signature appear as though it read ‘Blenkiron’. The claimants sent the goods without payment to ‘Blenkiron and Co.’ at the rogue’s address, and the rogue sold them to the defendants, innocent purchasers. The success of the claimants’ plea of mistake, and thus their ability to recover the goods from the defendants, depended upon whether they intended to deal with whichever firm traded at 37 Wood Street or whether they intended to deal specifically with Blenkiron and Co. The House of Lords held that the claimants intended to deal with Blenkiron and Co. so that the contract was void for mistake.
      - The consequence of the finding that the contract was void for mistake as to identity was that it was the defendants, as innocent third party purchasers, who suffered the loss, because they were found to have converted goods (tort of conversion) to which they had no title.
      - The decision in Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 illustrates the principle that, in order to render the contract void, any mistake must involve the mistaken party mistaking the rogue for another existing entity. It was key that the claimants knew that there was a reputable firm named Blenkiron and Co. operating from Wood Street; otherwise, the use of any fictitious name might suffice.
      - In Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas the House of Lords had held identity to be crucial where a contract had been concluded by written correspondence
- - - - However, objective test later applied in Liberty Mercian Ltd v Cuddy Civil Engineering Ltd [2013] EWHC 2688 (TCC), [2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 761, [2014] BLR 179 and therefore evidence that this may still be used