Business and Corporation Law

Running Head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW 0
Business Law
3/23/2019
Business and Corporate Law
Student’s Name

Business Law 1
Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................2
Issue 2
Law 2
Application 2
Conclusion 2
Question 2........................................................................................................................................3
Issue 3
Law 3
Application 3
Conclusion 4
Question 3........................................................................................................................................4
Issue 4
Law 4
Application 4
Conclusion 5
Question 4........................................................................................................................................5
Issue 5
Law 5
Application 6
Conclusion 6
References........................................................................................................................................7

Business Law 2
Question 1
Issue
To check the legal position of jazz and Mary in the case. Whether any contract existed
between them or not.
Law
Mistakes can be there on the part of parties regarding a fact of transaction or subject
matter. The identity of the subject is a mutual mistake of parties. In the case of Raffles v
Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H & C 906, it has been given by the court that in those cases where both the
parties have confusion regarding the identity of subject matter, an objective test is needed to be
applicable (Legaldictionary.net, 2019). If a reasonable person would not have been clear about
the identity of subject matter then the objective test fails and the contract is treated as void.
Application
In the given case, no party was clear about the identity of subject matter. When jazz think
of red Honda Jazz whereas Mary was thinking of white Honda Jazz. Both of them were on
confusion. If to apply an objective test, it is clear that a reasonable person will not be eligible to
know/decide the color of car. Applying the provisions of the case of Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864)
2 H & C 906, the contract will be treated as void.
Conclusion
It was a mutual mistake of the parties and a reasonable person cannot say with surety that
which car had been decided to sell and for this reason, the contract developed between the parties
was a void one. As no contract was there Mary is not able to accept delivery of the red car.