Contract Law

2667 Words11 Pages
Business Law Assignment; Mistake in contract law, is a factual misunderstanding that may lead to a failure of a meeting of the minds. Unilateral mistake is mean that is only one party is mistaken, but the other party knows, or ought reasonably to be aware of the mistake. Contract may be void or voidable. Void is a contract that is no legal effect. While, voidable is an agreement that may be affirmed or rejected at the option of one of the party. The reason why Lord Denning took the view that these two cases could not be reconciled and how the apparent conflict between these two cases was resolved by the decision in Lewis v Averay was explain. The first case under unilateral mistake is Boulton v Jones(1857). In this case, the contract…show more content…
The plaintiffs, Phillips found out the cheque was dishonoured after the rogue was sold the ring to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs sued the defendant to claim back his jewellery. However, end up the defendants had good title to the ring and the contract is not void. This is because the plaintiffs was intended to deal with the rogue before the rogue pretended to be Sir George. There was no mistake of identity can found in this case. The anomalies between Phillips v Brooks (1919) and Ingram v Little (1960) was identified and explained. In Phillips v Brooks (1919), the issue is who did Phillips intend to contract with? The real Sir George Bullough or the person standing in front of him? Since the plaintiffs in this case had checked the detail of the rogue but that was the detail of the real Sir George. While in the case of Ingram v Little (1960), the issue is did the original seller take sufficient steps to check the identity of the person in front of her? In the case, the plaintiffs also had checks the information and detail of the rogue in front of her but did she took the correct and efficient steps to check the identity? Lord Denning said that the two precedent cases of Phillips v Brooks (1919) and Ingram v Little (1960) cannot be reconciled. There are three reasons why he said the decisions of the two cases were in conflict. The first reason is the material facts in Phillips v Brooks (1919) and Ingram v Little (1960) were indistinguishable. In

More about Contract Law

Open Document