Mistake Flashcards
(19 cards)
1
Q
- it was said that a contract to buy and sell corn would be void if the food had, unbeknownst to the parties, perished
- if it were the case that the contract contained a term to the effect that the buyer assumed the risk of the corn perishing while in transit (due to delayed freight, or for whatever reason), then the contract would not be void
A
Couturier v. Hastie (1856) 6 HLC 673
2
Q
Separation agreement void as they were never married in the first place - both parties mistaken that they were married
A
Galloway v. Galloway (1914) 30 TLR 531
3
Q
- settlement was reached in a case concerning the estate of a deceased individual- family and non-marital son
- The litigating parties were agreed that the plaintiffs in the action would be paid £60,500 with the balance of the estate (circa £150,000) to go to the defendants
- A bank deposit of £58,000 was suddenly discovered after the settlement and the plaintiffs sought to rescind the contract due to the common mistake
- it was foreseeable that additional funds might be found despite the parties’ belief that they had uncovered all there was to uncover
A
Fitzsimons v. O’Hanlon [1999] 2 ILRM 551
4
Q
- the owners The Cape Providence learnt that it was damaged at sea and in danger of sinking
- defendant asked its brokers to find a merchant vessel in the vicinity of the stricken vessel, which would be willing to assist if necessary with the evacuation of the crew.
- brokers were informed by a reputable organisation that a vessel owned by the claimant was the nearest to the stricken vessel only 12 hours away
- entered into an agreement with the claimant to charter its vessel for a minimum of 5 days to help the stricken vessel
- Upon learning of the true position just under two hours after entering the contract, the defendant cancelled the deal involving the claimant’s vessel as there was another ship available to carry out the rescue which was much nearer to the stricken vessel and therefore more cost-efficient. The defendant refused to pay the hire charge, claiming common mistake.
- at law that a common mistake as to the quality of the subject matter of the contract would not avoid a contract unless it rendered the subject matter of the contract essentially different from the subject matter which the parties had believed to exist
- the greater-than-believed distance between the vessels had not rendered the services which the claimant’s vessel was in a position to provide something essentially different from those which the parties had agreed. The vessel would have arrived in time to provide several days of escort service, and the defendant would still have wished the contract to be performed, had it not learned of the arrival on the scene of another more proximate vessel which was prepared to provide the services
A
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v. Tsavliris (International) Ltd [2002] 4 All ER 689
5
Q
- the plaintiff brought an action for possession of rented premises on the basis of breaches of covenant. Prior to the commencement of these proceedings, however, the defendants had settled existing litigation concerning the same premises under an agreement which referred to a “full and final settlement of all matters”. The defendants argued, when faced with this new action of the plaintiff, that they had thought they were settling all matters outstanding, to include all current disputes which might not yet have been the subject of actual litigation at the time.
- Supreme Court reversed O’Hanlon J, holding the agreement void for mutual mistake
A
Mespil v. Capaldi [1986] ILRM 373
6
Q
- a rogue named North visited the plaintiff’s jewellery shop and selected jewellery worth almost £3,000
- North proceeded to write a cheque saying he was Sir George Bullough and giving an address in St James Square
- The plaintiff jeweller had heard of Sir George Bullough and verified the address given in the phone book.
- The rogue took a ring with him worth £450 and pawned it to the defendant who took it in good faith.
- The plaintiff sued the defendant pawnbroker for conversion.
- Court found for the defendant, holding that there was no mistake as to identity and thus the contract was not void
A
Phillips v. Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243
7
Q
- three elderly ladies who had advertised their Renault car for sale
- A rogue viewed the car and agreed to purchase it for £717. When the plaintiffs refused to accept the rogue’s cheque, he told them he was a Mr PMG Hutchinson of Stanstead House in Caterham. One of the ladies slipped out and checked the phone book to verify that such a person existed.
- The ladies then accepted the cheque which was later dishonoured and the car was sold to a third party.
- The Court of Appeal held the contract void and so the plaintiffs could recover the car.
A
Ingram v. Little [1960] 3 All ER 332
8
Q
- the plaintiff was a post-graduate student who advertised his car in the newspaper
- A rogue viewed it and offered to buy it at the given price.
- The rogue duly proffered a cheque in the name of the actor Richard Greene (to whom he bore a strong physical resemblance). As the rogue wanted to take the car away immediately, the plaintiff asked him for ID and was given a forged special stamped admission pass to Pinewood Studios.
- The plaintiff was satisfied by this and let the rogue leave with the car, which was subsequently sold to the defendant.
- When the plaintiff sued the defendant for conversion, the Court of Appeal held that he could not recover the vehicle on the basis of mistake
- no mistake as to identity- person standing in front of him
A
Lewis v. Avery [1972] 1 QB 198
9
Q
- the finance company contracted via written agreement, relying on stolen documentation (Mr. Patel’s driver’s license). The House of Lords held the contract void for mistake because the agreement was expressly with “Mr. Patel,” a specific, identified party. The rogue’s fraud meant no valid contract existed, so title never transferred.
- car on hire-purchase
A
Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson [2004] 1 All ER 215
10
Q
- an experienced gambler with a Paddy Power online betting account telephoned in a bet on a horse with a proposed stake of £1,300 each way
- telephone operator (based in Gibraltar) communicated the bet as an offer, for clearance, to the relevant decision-maker (based in Dublin) who misheard the offer communicated as £13,000 each way.
- The bet was approved at the higher figure and agreed to by the plaintiff. £26,000 was deducted from his account
- The horse in question won, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the contract. Despite the situation being the result of error on the part of Paddy Power employees, and the absence of any duty as such on the plaintiff to correct the error, the Court considered the case to be one of unilateral mistake and the contract unenforceable.
- “the true reason for the decision is probably Paddy Power’s willingness to ‘resettle’ the account by crediting the punter with the amount he would have won had the initial bet proposed been correctly laid.”
A
Longley v. PPB Entertainment Ltd. & Ors. [2022]
11
Q
- a number of experienced businessmen “actively and constantly involved in commercial and financial transactions and decisions” attempted to claim that they had not realised they were signing a guarantee in favour of the plaintiff bank.
- Warning above
A
Danske Bank AS (trading as National Irish Bank) v. Walsh & Ors [2013] IEHC 190
12
Q
- the plaintiff sought summary judgment for the sum of €3 million. The second named defendant in that case, the wife of the first named defendant, sought to raise the defence of non est factum.
- Even the most cursory of glances at the documents which bear her signature would alert any but the illiterate to the fact that this was some form of borrowing transaction.
A
IBRC v. Quinn [2011] IEHC 470
13
Q
- A rare successful plea of non est factum
- A non-national woman, with only two years’ training in the English language and wholly inexperienced in financial affairs, entered into a loan contract with the plaintiff, all the time understanding herself to be setting up a trust fund for her children. Her husband acted as guarantor. There had been no engagement by Mrs. Lavelle as principal borrower in the lending process at any level, and, according to Charleton J, “… she trusted totally in the expertise, competence and honesty of her husband …” The High Court found the loan arrangement was for tax purposes and Mrs. Lavelle’s husband was the de facto, if not the actual, legal borrower. Upholding the wife’s claim of non est factum, Charleton J nonetheless described the case as involving a situation “… which has rarely, if ever, been seen before …”
A
Friends First Finance Limited v. Lavelle & Anor. [2013] IEHC 201
14
Q
- defence of non est factum ****is “only rarely invoked successfully” and rejected a claim by the defendant that he believed he was only guaranteeing one-third of a particular company’s debts and had not realised the guarantee he was signing made him liable jointly and severally with two other individuals (in effect a difference between a liability of €83,333.33 and €250,000).
- Although Birmingham J accepted that the clause in question “would not receive an award from the Campaign for Plain English” nonetheless he did not agree that the language was “exceptionally technical” and “would have expected that its meaning would have been apparent to any businessman”
A
AIB plc v. McKenna [2014] IEHC 122
15
Q
- 5 rules for mistake
-The law ought to uphold rather than destroy apparent contracts. - The common law rules as to a mistake regarding the quality of the subject matter are designed to cope with the impact of unexpected and wholly exceptional circumstances on apparent contracts.
- In order to attract legal consequences the mistake must substantially be shared by both parties and must relate to facts as they existed at the time the contract was made.
- The mistake must render the subject matter of the contract essentially and radically different from the subject matter which the parties believed to exist.
- The mistake must not consist of a belief which is entertained by a party without any reasonable grounds for such belief.
A
Associated Japanese Bank v. Credit du Nord SA
16
Q
- established in UK equitable mistake
- rents case - should have been smaller
A
Solle v Butcher
17
Q
suggests that quality mistake never operative
A
Bell v Lever Bros
18
Q
seeds not sound- quality key- void- in IE
A
Western Potato Co-Op
19
Q
failed to notify the plaintiff- top 50- 12 get price- awarded nominal damages
A
Chaplin v Hicks
