Mistake

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Tiana H
  • Created on: 08-05-18 09:41
Raffles v Wichelhaus
Both parties were referring to different months that a ship was going to be sailing - neither liable, contract void
1 of 12
Smith Hughes
mistaken quality of subject matter - seller knew buyer had mistaken his old oats for new oats but did not tell him - if party aware of, but not the cause of the mistake then contract valid - also mistake of quality very rarely allowed by courts
2 of 12
Hartog v Shield
Accidentally sold hare skins by the pound not the piece - was 1/3 of the normal price and hare skins were usually sold by the piece - claimant must have realised the mistake - contract valid
3 of 12
Shogun Finances Ltd v Hudson
car dealer supplied to F on credit with stolen documents from Mr Patel - F sold car to Hudson - was the contract face to face with F, or written with Mr Patel - HL decided 2nd option and contract void from the start so hudson lost out
4 of 12
Cundy v Lindsay
dealt with fraudster company - contract void s the claimant was able to demonstrate an identifiable existing business with whom they intended to contract with.
5 of 12
Kings Norton Metal v Edridge
Not void as they could not identify an existing company called Hallum & co with whom they intended to contract - voidable for misrep - title did pass from claimant to F so D had good title to the goods.
6 of 12
Bell v Lever Brothers
Bell given compensation money for redundency - later found out that bell had previously breached contract so they couldve released him without the money - tried to claim money back but was not granted
7 of 12
Courier v Hastie
Exsistence of Subject Matter - cargo perished before contract was made without either party knowing - contract void because subject matter did not exist at time of contract
8 of 12
Sheikh Brothers v Ochsner
unknown to both parties, land was not able to produce yield - contract void
9 of 12
Cooper v Phibbs
Defendent leased fishery - unknown to both parties D had no title to the fishery
10 of 12
Griffith v Brymer
unknown to both parties the coronation of King had been cancelled
11 of 12
Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris
Salvage ship much further away than they thought - tried to cancel and argue contract was void for mistake - claim failed
12 of 12

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

mistaken quality of subject matter - seller knew buyer had mistaken his old oats for new oats but did not tell him - if party aware of, but not the cause of the mistake then contract valid - also mistake of quality very rarely allowed by courts

Back

Smith Hughes

Card 3

Front

Accidentally sold hare skins by the pound not the piece - was 1/3 of the normal price and hare skins were usually sold by the piece - claimant must have realised the mistake - contract valid

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

car dealer supplied to F on credit with stolen documents from Mr Patel - F sold car to Hudson - was the contract face to face with F, or written with Mr Patel - HL decided 2nd option and contract void from the start so hudson lost out

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

dealt with fraudster company - contract void s the claimant was able to demonstrate an identifiable existing business with whom they intended to contract with.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »