Couturier v Hastie /// Scott v Coulson /// Galloway v Galloway /// Sale of Goods Act 1979
Common mistake: res extincta
1 of 19
McRae v Commonwealth
Common mistake: res extincta (if a person warrants the existence of an item, the contract WILL NOT be void for mistake)
2 of 19
res extincta
the subject matter of the contract no longer exists
3 of 19
res sua
where the goods already belong to the purchaser
4 of 19
Cooper v Phibbs
common mistake: res sua
5 of 19
Bell v Lever Bros /// Leaf v International Galleries
common mistake: quality (contract WILL NOT be void for mistake if you have simply overpaid (caveat emptor))
6 of 19
Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord /// William Sindall v CCC /// Great Peace Shipping
common mistake: quality (contract WILL NOT be void for mistake if the term (or mistake) does not make the contract “essentially and radically different”)
7 of 19
Raffles v Wichelhaus /// Wood v Scarth
mutual mistake: includes third party interference
8 of 19
Smith v Hughes
if one party is mistaken over the terms of a contract, it WILL NOT always be void, UNLESS it concerns quality
9 of 19
Hartog v Colin & Shields /// Scriven v Hindley
OVERRULED SMITH V HUGHES as void
10 of 19
inter absentes
(where the parties are not physically present when the contract is made)
11 of 19
Cundy v Lindsay /// King’s Norton Metal v Edridge & Merrett
contact VOID If party pretends to be a reputable firm but NOT VOID if is a non- existent company
12 of 19
inter praesentes
parties in a face to face transaction means there is a presumption that parties intend to deal with the person in front of them)
13 of 19
Phillips v Brooks /// Lewis v Avery
inter praesentes: contracts where parties are dealt with at face value WILL NOT be void for mistake as the law presumes you intend to deal with the person in front of you
14 of 19
Ingram v Little
inter praesentes: this case was highly criticised as it did not follow the precedent of above. (Courts VOID a contract that occurred face to face)
15 of 19
non est factum
not my deed
16 of 19
Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse /// Foster v MacKinnon /// Saunders v Anglia Building Society
a signing party is able to escape performance of an agreement "which is fundamentally different from what they originally intended to sign”.
17 of 19
rectification
when judges blue pencil a contract
18 of 19
Joscelyne v Nissen /// Craddock Brothers v Hunt
written contracts that don’t reflect oral statements means courts may rectify (blue pencil) the contract to ensure oral terms are included
19 of 19
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
McRae v Commonwealth
Back
Common mistake: res extincta (if a person warrants the existence of an item, the contract WILL NOT be void for mistake)
Comments
No comments have yet been made