Law of Unilateral Mistake

The mistake occurred. Mary McDonald entered into an agreement in such a way that the

Mistake is a defense whenever the mistake prevents the formation of any fault-based mental attitude; Namely, Puposedly, Knowingly, Recklessly, or Nigliently. Mistakes are sometimes called a failure-of-proof defense because defendants usually present enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved that they formed the mens era required for criminal liability.

Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 1873 D, a foreman platelayer misread the timetable as to when a train was to arrive. He placed a flagman at the wrong distance giving insufficient warning to the driver. A train left the rails at a spot where rails had been taken up and not replaced. The negligence was that D did not take the correct care to make sure he was working at the right time, when any reasonable person would have known how dangerous the job can be and to double check they are correct.

To illustrate, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled they had jurisdiction over Owens and Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc. (“Fitzner”). Lowry v. Owens, 621 So. 2d 1262, 1267 (Ala. 1993). Fitzner is a Mississippi corporation licensed to do business in Mississippi. Id. at 1263. A third party initiated contact with Owens who bought cars from Fitzner for resale in Alabama. Id. Lowry picked up the car with a third party, and a later inspection revealed the car had been wrecked and was not new as advertised. Id. Lowry sued Owens and Fitzner for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit from the original car sale. Id. at 1264. The Supreme Court of Alabama needed to determine if Fitzner had sufficient minimum contacts to justify the court asserting personal jurisdiction over Fitzner in Alabama. Id. Minimum contacts is made up of purposeful availment and foreseeability. Id. at 1265. Fitzner’s alleged fraud alone is not sufficient for purposeful

breach of express and implied contracts based on the theory of promoter liability. The courts

The area of Law concerned in this case is The Law of Contract specifically relating to the revocation of an offer and counter offers. The case Wolf and Wolf vs Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) directly links to the case between Bruce and Ken. As Bruce is once again dealing with the Law of Contract specifically the non-acceptance of an offer, he is under no legal obligation to sell Ken the rare vinyl at the original price of £40. When Ken rejected the original offer he created a counter offer which in Scots law is a completely new offer and caused Bruce’s original offer to lapse and was up to Bruce to decide wether or not to accept the new terms, after Bruce rejected the counter offer all offers between Bruce and Ken had lapsed. When Ken came back insisting that there was a contract between them and he was entitled to the album Bruce was in fact under no legal requirement to give Ken the vinyl as all offers had lapsed and no contract existed between then.

It was decided that if the “representor gave information-or advice which was negligent he would be liable for any pecuniary or personal damage-caused”5. However the appeal was dismissed due to the fact that with “the absence of a contract or fiduciary relationship” the defendant that used a disclaimer would owe no duty of care.6 The case was significant in that claims on negligent misstatement could work if; there is a special affiliation among parties, the information provided by a party has a voluntary assumed risk, the plaintiff has to deem the information reliable, and finally the reliability of the information must be applicable. 

The fourth amendment is known for its ambiguity, however when taking a deeper look it is also where the exclusionary rule is derived from. The fourth amendment provides freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, meaning any evidence obtained violating the exclusionary rule is inadmissible in court. Unless, it is a good faith mistake. The evolution of the exclusionary rule is important and vital in providing protection to the people. Protection from the federal government and state officials will be applied through case law. Additionally, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizure will narrow its scope in where it can be applied. Specifically, exclusionary rule is limited to criminal court during the trial fase. When

Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would

BTT could not avoid this contract under the doctrine on mistake. A mistake is defined in contract law as a belief that is not in accord with the facts. I do not believe that the doctrine of mistake would have any bearing in this scenario.

An mistake of fact is said to be made when a person understands the facts to be other than they are "A mistake sufficient to vacate a dismissal may be found where a party, under some erroneous conviction, does an act he would not do but for the erroneous conviction. . (H. D. Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin, (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1357, 1368.)

The rule that courts will imply a term that was overlooked when the contract was being made, as it was so obvious

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,

Lewis sold his car to a man who claimed to be Richard Greene, a popular star. The man paid by cheque, providing a film studio pass as a proof of his identity. He sold the car to Avery. The cheque had been taken from a stolen cheque book and was later dishonoured. Lewis sued Avery to recover his car. It was held that this contract cannot be voided as the plaintiff cannot show the importance of identity. The mistaken belief to the credibility of act is not sufficient.