Mistake
A Mistake in Contract Law is defined as ‘a mistake of one party which is not shared by the other party, and which may, or may not, be known about the other party’ in these law notes each case is presented as concise summary giving the student the working ability to quickly understand the facts that are important. Followed by the ratio of the case and the reason why decision was arrived at and how the case creates the general principle. There is also commentary on how the case should applies.
Cases
Common mistake
Couturier v Hastie (1856) 10 ER 1065, HL
Scott v Coulson [1903] 2 Ch 249, CA
Cooper v Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149, HL
Mistake as to quality
Bell v Lever Brothers [1932] AC 161, HL
Mutual Mistakes
Raffles v Wichelhaus(1864) 159 ER 375, Exchequer
Scriven Bros v Hindley [1913] 3 KB 564, Lawrence J
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, QB
Unilateral mistake
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566, Singleton J
Shogun Finance v Hudson [2004] 1 All ER 215, HL
Mistaken Identity
Cundy v Lindsay (1878) LR 3 AC 459, HL
Face- to- face Principle
Ingram v Little [1961] 3 All ER 332, CA
Rectification
Bates v Wyndham's Lingerie [1981] 1 All ER 1077, CA
A Mistake in Contract Law is defined as ‘a mistake of one party which is not shared by the other party, and which may, or may not, be known about the other party’ in these law notes each case is presented as concise summary giving the student the working ability to quickly understand the facts that are important. Followed by the ratio of the case and the reason why decision was arrived at and how the case creates the general principle. There is also commentary on how the case should applies.
Cases
Common mistake
Couturier v Hastie (1856) 10 ER 1065, HL
Scott v Coulson [1903] 2 Ch 249, CA
Cooper v Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149, HL
Mistake as to quality
Bell v Lever Brothers [1932] AC 161, HL
Mutual Mistakes
Raffles v Wichelhaus(1864) 159 ER 375, Exchequer
Scriven Bros v Hindley [1913] 3 KB 564, Lawrence J
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, QB
Unilateral mistake
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566, Singleton J
Shogun Finance v Hudson [2004] 1 All ER 215, HL
Mistaken Identity
Cundy v Lindsay (1878) LR 3 AC 459, HL
Face- to- face Principle
Ingram v Little [1961] 3 All ER 332, CA
Rectification
Bates v Wyndham's Lingerie [1981] 1 All ER 1077, CA
A Mistake in Contract Law is defined as ‘a mistake of one party which is not shared by the other party, and which may, or may not, be known about the other party’ in these law notes each case is presented as concise summary giving the student the working ability to quickly understand the facts that are important. Followed by the ratio of the case and the reason why decision was arrived at and how the case creates the general principle. There is also commentary on how the case should applies.
Cases
Common mistake
Couturier v Hastie (1856) 10 ER 1065, HL
Scott v Coulson [1903] 2 Ch 249, CA
Cooper v Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149, HL
Mistake as to quality
Bell v Lever Brothers [1932] AC 161, HL
Mutual Mistakes
Raffles v Wichelhaus(1864) 159 ER 375, Exchequer
Scriven Bros v Hindley [1913] 3 KB 564, Lawrence J
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, QB
Unilateral mistake
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566, Singleton J
Shogun Finance v Hudson [2004] 1 All ER 215, HL
Mistaken Identity
Cundy v Lindsay (1878) LR 3 AC 459, HL
Face- to- face Principle
Ingram v Little [1961] 3 All ER 332, CA
Rectification
Bates v Wyndham's Lingerie [1981] 1 All ER 1077, CA