Mistake Flashcards
(18 cards)
Megaw v Molloy
“Jessie Parker” cargo mislabelled as “Emma Peasant”
Parties at cross purposes - not truly in agreement
Hartof v Colin and Shields
If buyer noticed seller’s obvious mistake in letter, there is no contract
Parties at cross purposes
Mespil v Capaldi
Written agreement but parties had two different “proceedings” in mind, settlement was void for mistake
Megaher v Dublin City Council
Landlord thought that the tenants were conceding that his figures were correct, tenants thought they were agreeing that the figures should be checked
No true agreement, as to figures
Gill v McDowell
Hermaphroditic bullock, buyer thought it was a cow
No true agreement as to subject matter, no contract
Smith v Hughes
Age of the oats was not a fundamental matter - to claim so would have to prove that there are contractual terms on the age of the oat
The doctrine of mistake is only applied to fundamental matters - lesser mistakes are dealt with by interpretation or implied terms
Clayton Love v B&I
Core purpose of the contract is fundamental
Cindy v Lindsey
What does identity only become relevant for? “identity is commercially relevant”
Skilled service
Memoirs
Employment
Purchase of goods/shares
Purchase of land
Ingram
Mistake as to identity face to face
Contract is void if creditworthiness affects contract itself
Levis v Avery / Philips v Brooks
Robin Hood car case / Ring in jewellery shop
Mistake as to identity face to face does not void the contract if there is nothing to negate the presumption of a contract
Boulton v Jones
Mistake as to identity when negotiating as a distance is void if the personality/ identity of the buyer was important
Galloway v Galloway
Common fundamental mistake - legal separation agreement when their marriage was never valid
Contract held void
Western Potato
Common fundamental mistake doctrine is not confined to matters of non-existence subjects
Sale of seed potatoes to a farmer, should have produced 80 tons of potatoes but was defective and only produced 9 tons
Common fundamental mistake as to quantity/figure, contract void
Fitzsimons v O’Hanlon
Mistake as to figure in common fundamental disagreement has to be of a fundamental figure difference
(On finding out if its fundamental, consider if P got what they wanted in the end - Bell v Lever Brother)
O’Neill v Ryan
Leading Irish case on common fundamental mistake, or “equitable common fundamental mistake” - the doctrine cannot be invoked by a party at fault - mistake must be common as opposed to unilateral
Saunders v Anglia
Land to nephew and signed deed. Plea didn’t apply here as she could have waited for her glasses to be repaired to realise the name of her nephew on the contract was wrong
Non est factum
Plea that you did not realise what you were signing, party as such denies the effect of their signature
Requires a fundamental mistake as to the practical effect of the document without carelessness on the signer’s part - Here, contract is void
note: the signee has to ask the contractor as to any confusion on the terms if the doctrine is to apply (Allied Irish Banks Plc)
note: can’t apply to personal guarantee documents (Londis v Gibson)
note: this doctrine is different if the context is misplaced family trust (Friends First Finance)
What is rectification of signed documents not allowed for?
Figure mistakes (Nolan v Graces)
Facts not agreed on (R McD v McD)
Bad legal advice (Racal Group)
When there is no evidence of D knowing the mistake (Irish Life Assc)
What is rectification of signed documents allowed for?
If D knew of P’s mistake (Gun v McCalling) - high level of explicit evidence needed
