This chapter considers the circumstances in which a mistake by one or both parties may affect the validity of the contract, and discusses the two categories of case: (i) where agreement has been reached, but upon the basis of a common mistake; and (ii) where an apparent agreement is alleged to be vitiated by mutual or unilateral mistake. It also considers cases of documents mistakenly signed, that is, where a person is induced by the false statement of another to sign a written document containing a contract which is fundamentally different in character from that which he contemplated.
Chapter
8. Mistake
M P Furmston
Chapter
9. Misrepresentation, Duress, and Undue Influence
M P Furmston
This chapter discusses three reasons why a contract may be invalid. These are that it was procured by misrepresentation (basically one party misleading the other), by duress (threats by one party to the other), or by undue influence (one party improperly taking advantage of the other).
Chapter
6. Mistake
A party who enters a contract because of a mistaken assumption as to background fact can realistically complain that she should not have to take the normal responsibility for her apparent consent. On the other hand, the objective test of intentions renders mistakes irrelevant to the validity of contracts. The chapter explores how contract law balances these competing norms. It discusses: (1) when a claimant can escape a contract due to her unilateral mistake as to: the contractual terms, the nature of the document, or the other party’s identity; (2) when a contract be rectified to correct a mistake in recording it; (3) when a claimant can escape a contract on the ground of her mistaken assumption about the relevant (non-term) facts; (4) the justification for relieving mistake; (5) whether the current law is satisfactory, and if not, how might it be developed.
Chapter
16. Mistake
This chapter examines the effects of a mistake on the validity of a contract. A mistake may prevent parties from reaching agreement. First, a court may decide that no contract has been concluded where one party knows that the other is labouring under a mistake in relation to the terms of the agreement and fails to inform that other party of the mistake. Secondly, it may conclude that the terms of the offer and acceptance suffer from a latent ambiguity such that the parties cannot be said to have reached agreement. The third case in which a mistake may prevent the formation of a contract is where there has been a mistake as to the identity of the party who is said to be a party to the contract. The discussion then turns to the leading cases on common mistake, mistake in equity, and rectification. The chapter concludes by considering the non est factum defence, which can be invoked by someone who, through no fault of his own, has no understanding of the document that he has signed.
Chapter
3. Contract II: mistake, misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter considers contract law and the factors that may affect the contract or its validity: mistake, misrepresentation, duress, and undue influence. A contract may be held void due to a fundamental mistake, as the parties did not have a true agreement. An action under misrepresentation is available if an untrue representation is considered ‘actionable’. If a contract is established on the basis of violence (or a threat), or unlawful economic pressure, this may be considered to be a case of duress. Where undue influence has been used to form the contract, it will be voidable.
Chapter
16. Mistake
This chapter examines the effects of a mistake on the validity of a contract. A mistake may prevent parties from reaching agreement. First, a court may decide that no contract has been concluded where one party knows that the other is labouring under a mistake in relation to the terms of the agreement and fails to inform that other party of the mistake. Secondly, it may conclude that the terms of the offer and acceptance suffer from a latent ambiguity such that the parties cannot be said to have reached agreement. The third case in which a mistake may prevent the formation of a contract is where there has been a mistake as to the identity of the party who is said to be a party to the contract. The discussion then turns to the leading cases on common mistake, mistake in equity, and rectification. The chapter concludes by considering the non est factum defence, which can be invoked by someone who, through no fault of his own, has no understanding of the document that he has signed.
