Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

mistake - Coggle Diagram

- - - - the defendant iuregemly required a vessel to carry out salvage services
        5 day hire contract
        both parties beleived the greta peacee was 35 miles away. in fact, ti was 410 miles away
        the contratc was not void for common mistake abotu the location of the great peace because performance not impossible
        
        this was basically becuase, although it would take longer, it could still be carried out
  - - - mistake as to the existence of subject matte r- resextincta
      - mistakje as to owenrsho[
        
        res sua
      - quality
      - possibility of performamce
  - - - ceases to eist or never existed at the time contratc entered into. This menas that the contratc is void for common mistake
      - sale of goods contracts = B not compellled to pay fpr goods whicgh B has not recieved due to total failiure of consideration
      - courtier v hastie 1856
        
        unbeknown to both aprties, a few days before the contracy was made, teh cargo which was on board of a shop started to deteriorate and as a result the captain sold it
        Held - B not liable - the contract contemplated that the goods sold actually existed and since they didnt s could not be requireed to deliver goods, nor B to pay for them
      - section 6 of the sale of goods act
        
        where there is a contract for the sale fo speciifc goods, adn the godos without the knowledge of the seller have perished when contract made, the contract is void
        
        Associated jaapanese bank ltd v credit du nord 1988
        
        held - teh gaurantee was subejct to the condition that the machines existed since they did nto exist, then the guarantee did not become effective, d could not be liable under it
  - - - correspondingly to mistaek as to the subejct matter is mistake as to title in cases where, unkown to both partues, the buyer is already the owner of that which the seller purprost tos ell to him
    - - coopers uncle, being in error ttold cooper that he was entitled to a fishery. once the uncle died, cooper agreed to elase it from phibbs. Hwoever, cooper was unaware that the fishery belonged to him. In fact, cooper had concluded a contract to lease property to himself. The agreement, having been made in mutuual mistake, entitled it to be set aside
  - - - mistake as to quality of thibg contract for raises hard quesitons - mistake wont affect assent unless it is the mistake of both parties adn is to the existenc eof some quality which makes the thing without the quality essentially different from the thing as it was believed to be
      - in the actual bell v leever bros case contract not void for msitake
      - C onlky able tor ender contract void if the particualr quality of goods, becomes a party of the contract or is the basis of a claim for misrerpesentation
        
        c only able to render contract void if particlular quality of goods
        
        becomes aprt of contract or is the basis fo a claim for misrepresentaiton
    - - c bought apainting believed to be constable, had been represented by the seller as a constable - later discovered that it wasnt a constable. teh fact tat the mistake was fundemanetal didnt impact actual; perforamnce of the contract. Argument that C contracted to buy a constable rejected
      - Lord Eveershed
        
        what he contracted to buy and what he bought was a specific chattel, namely, an oil painting of cathedral and he still goit it
  - - - physical impossibility
      - legal imppossobility
        
        legal impossibiltiy
        
        kleinwort benson ltd v lincoln city council
        
        oKleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable.
        
        oSubsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap agreements were unlawful.
        
        oKleinwort Benson then sought restitution of the payments on the basis of a mistake of law.
        
        oHeld- money paid under a mistake of law could be recovered.
      - commercial impossibility
        
        Sheikh Brothers ltd v oschner - 1957
        
        pysical impossibiloty case
        
        sheikh brothers 197
        
        oBy an agreement a company granted a licence to cut, decorticate, process and manufacture all sisal then or at any time thereafter growing on certain lands in Kenya.
        
        oThe contract established the production of sisal fibre in average minimum quantities of 50 tons per month.
        
        oIt was alleged that both parties believed, contrary to the fact, that the leaf potential of the sisal area would be sufficient to permit the manufacture and delivery of the minimum quantities of 50 tons but in reality the leaf potential of the sisal area made it impossible to produce the prescribed minimum quantities.
        
        oHeld- having regard to the nature of the contract which was a kind of joint adventure, it was the very basis of the contract that the sisal area should be capable of producing an average of 50 tons a month throughout the term of the licence; it followed that the mistake was as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement.
      - commercial impossibility - griffith v brymer
        
        oA hotel room was booked at 11am on 24.06.1902 to see the royal procession
        
        oThe procession never happened because the King was operated on the same day at 10am
        
        oNeither party was aware that the coronation had been cancelled prior to the formation of the contract.
        
        oHeld- the contract was void due to common mistake
- - - - if innceont aprty eelcts to affirm the voidable contract, ti will continue to be binding on both parties
- - - - if msitkae operates it operates so as to negative or nullfiy consent - esssentially, mistake prevents any agreement form arising, so there is no conrrac
- - - - bell v lever pbros 1931