mistake case s

• What is a common mistake type in contracts?

  Subject matter ceased to exist
• What does Couturier v Hastie (1856) illustrate about common mistakes in contracts?

  • The plaintiff sold corn believed to be in transit.
  • The corn had already been sold due to fermentation.
  • The House of Lords held no contract existed.
  • The contract was void due to the non-existence of the subject matter.
• What was the ruling in Couturier v Hastie regarding the contract?

  The contract was void due to non-existence
• What must be true for a contract to be void for common mistake at common law?

  It must be shared by both parties
• What is required for a mistake to void a contract at common law?

  It must be fundamental and unallocated
• What does the case Associated Japanese Bank v Credit du Nord SA demonstrate about common mistakes?

  • The plaintiff bank guaranteed lease agreements.
  • The equipment involved never existed.
  • The guarantee was void due to common mistake.
  • The fundamental assumption of existence was false.
• What was the outcome of Leaf v International Galleries regarding common mistake?

  There was no operative common mistake
• What type of mistake does not render a contract void for common mistake?

  Mistake as to quality of subject matter
• What did the court rule in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd regarding common mistake?

  The contract was not void for mistake
• What constitutes a fundamental mistake in a contract?

  It renders the subject matter essentially different
• What principle was established in Cooper v Phibbs regarding mutual mistakes?

  • The contract was voidable in equity.
  • Both parties had a mutual mistake about ownership.
  • Cooper was leasing from himself due to prior settlement.
  • Equity may intervene to prevent injustice.
• What is the ruling in Sheikh Brothers Ltd v Ochsner regarding impossibility of performance?

  Contract is void if objectively impossible
• What does Griffith v Brymer illustrate about common mistake in contracts?

  • A room was hired for a cancelled procession.
  • Both parties mistakenly believed the procession would occur.
  • The contract was void due to fundamental mistake.
  • The purpose of the contract was frustrated.
• What was declared about the swaps in Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council?

  They were ultra vires and void
• What did the House of Lords rule regarding mistakes of law in Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council?

  They can be actionable like mistakes of fact
• What does Raffles v Wichelhaus illustrate about latent ambiguity in contracts?

  • Each party attached different meanings to a term.
  • There was no common intention between the parties.
  • No binding contract was formed due to ambiguity.
  • The ambiguity was latent, not obvious.
• What was the ruling in Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP regarding contract terms?

  The mistake regarding price was material
• What did the court emphasize in Smith v Hughes regarding unilateral mistakes?

  There was an objective agreement on terms
• What is the significance of Phillips v Brooks Ltd regarding identity in contracts?

  Contract is valid despite mistaken identity
• What was the outcome in Ingram v Little regarding fraudulent identity?

  The court ruled on the validity of the contract
• What is required for a contract to be valid and enforceable?

  Clear intention to contract with a specific person
• What was the issue in the case regarding Phillips and the pawnbroker?

  Whether there was a valid contract despite deception
• Why was the contract enforceable in Phillips' case?

  Defendant purchased the ring in good faith
• What was the outcome of Ingram v Little?

  The contract was voidable due to mistake
• Why did the court hold the contract voidable in Ingram v Little?

  The mistake went to the essence of the contract
• What is a material factor in a contract regarding identity?

  It must go to the heart of the contract
• What was the ruling in Cundy v Lindsay regarding the contract?

  The contract was void due to mistake as to identity
• What did the House of Lords emphasize in Cundy v Lindsay?

  The mistake about identity was material
• What was the outcome of Hudson v Shogun Finance?

  The contract was voidable due to misrepresentation
• Why was the contract voidable in Hudson v Shogun Finance?

  The fraudster's identity was central to the transaction
• What is the principle regarding contracts with mistaken identity?

  A contract is voidable if the mistake is material
• What did Kings Norton Metal Co v Etridge establish about contracts?

  Contracts can be voidable due to fraudulent misrepresentation
• What is the significance of misrepresentation in contracts?

  It can render a contract voidable
• What was the ruling in Gallie v Lee regarding the contract?

  The contract was enforceable despite the mistake
• What principle did the court apply in Gallie v Lee?

  Equitable principles, particularly estoppel
• What does Joscelyn v Nissen illustrate about contracts?

  Contracts can be voidable due to fraudulent misrepresentation
• What did the court emphasize in Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes?

  Contracts may be rectified to reflect true intentions
• What is the test for mistake in equity as clarified in Pitt v Holt?

  The mistake must be fundamental and serious
• What can lead to a transaction being set aside in equity?

  A fundamental mistake that causes unjust results
• What is the significance of a common mistake in contracts?

  It can be grounds for rescission