Contract of Law: Doctrine of Mistake
Added on 2020-01-07
11 Pages4853 Words224 Views
CONTRACT LAW
The branch of law which is most susceptible to uncertainties and difficulties is that of lawof contract, and especially in the event an error occurs at the time of formation of the contract1.This is the doctrine of mistake and in light of the same the above statement was made by arenowned author in response to the case of Sowler v. Potter (1940). With the passage of time thisdoctrine has shown increased complicity especially in the case of unilateral mistakes. Anotherbranch of contract law which governs sale of goods is based on the idiom of nemo dat quod nonhabet is the basic general rule followed by the parties and the courts. It essentially means that aperson cannot transfer a better title to any other person than he himself is in possession of. Alsoknown as the nemo dat rule can be applied in the case of nemo dat conflicts2. One of the partiesto the conflict shall claim benefit of the said rule, and on the other hand the other party can claimprotection under the periphery of one of the exceptions to the said rule. In such agreements,firstly the original owner of the products shall make a sale to the middle person, who in turn shallthe same to an innocent purchaser. In the event the middleman makes a misrepresentation of theidentity, then the agreement so entered between them shall be considered voidable, but not void3.Therefore, with the application of this rule the middleman is entitled to pass a title which is alsovoidable in nature to the innocent buyer, who eventually can take protection under the rule ofnemo dat. Mistaken identity is considered as the defence in the criminal law that claims the actualinnocence of the criminal defendant and thus attempts to gain the evidence as per the eyewitnessto the crime4. Mistake within the contract is considered as the complex area of contract law5.However, it is the general rule that through mistaken identity it would affect the contractualparties involved within the contract. Mistaken identity could be of two different types- 1Alessio Ishizaka, Craig Pearman and Philippe Nemery. AHPSort: an AHP-based method for sortingproblems [2012] International Journal of Production Research50(17) pp.4767-4784.2 Wiebke Reim, Vinit Parida and Daniel Örtqvist. Product–Service Systems (PSS) business models andtactics–a systematic literature review [2015] Journal of Cleaner Production. 97 pp.61-75.3 Paula Bajdor and Iwona Grabara. The Role of Information System Flows in Fulfilling Customers’Individual Orders. [2014] Journal of Studies in Social Sciences. 7(2).4 Dirk van Dierendonck, and Gabriele Jacobs. Survivors and victims, a meta‐analytical review of fairnessand organizational commitment after downsizing [2012] British Journal of Management 23(1). pp.96-109.5 Cartwright John. Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer [2016]Bloomsbury Publishing.1
Mistaken by law- It is an effective law that is prevailed by the country in regard to put the lawupon perfect condition6. However, it is considered as the legal principle which refers to one ormore errors and also made by the person in regard to understand how it is applicable to the pastactivity and thus analyse within the court of law. Mistaken law is the defence that is provided tocriminal defendant which is misunderstood or ignored at the time of carrying out the subject.Mistaken of facts- It states that the mistakes which are involved within the facts and thusdescribes that such type of errors and omissions are occurred7. It is also stated that such errorsare considered as the crime and thus criminal defendant could prove that mistake reasonablyconsidered as the crime and usually held in regard to overcome the liability of the defendant8.Also, such type of facts arises at the time when parties are making the contract they did certainmistake and thus it is known as mistake of facts. Here, different cases are being analysed and thus as per the Shogun Finance v Hudson(2003)case, it can be evaluated that a rogue purchased a car upon hire purchase terms from thecare dealer. However, he provided a false driving license of Mr. Patel. Now the car dealer sendthe driving license to the claimant finance company and asked for details upon the applicationform9. Then the finance company's credit team search for Mr. Patel and then he asked the dealerto let the rogue to have the car. Then the rogue paid 10% deposit and thus drove off with the car.Later, he sold the car to the defendant and signed the finance agreement. Later, claimant broughtan action against the defendant claiming that he is the owner of the care as the contract was voidfor mistake. In such type of case, mistaken identity could be applied as the court of law decidesthat the contract was void because of the happened mistake because the contract was concludedwithin the finance company and rogue was not present at the time of making the contract. Here,the mistaken identify arises in the starting only when rogue introduces himself as the Mr. Pateland provided the same driving license10. Hence, it could be stated that the identity of the personwas crucial in regard to make the contract because Mr. Patel made the credit check as it is6 Atul Porwal and Kasun N Hewage. Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework forpublic construction projects [2013] Automation in Construction 31 pp.204-214.7 Emily Hough. Sketches of a Redemptive Theory of contract law [2015] Hastings 66 pp. 9518 Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Fogelin. Cengage Advantage Books: Understanding Arguments: AnIntroduction to Informal Logic [2014] Cengage Learning.9 Carlos Oliveira Cruz and Rui Cunha Marques. Flexible contracts to cope with uncertainty in public–private partnerships. [2013] International Journal of Project Management 31(3) pp. 473-483.2
essential because without identifying the credit details claimant would not have allowed to getthe car. Here, it is also essential to identify the person who were involved in the contract becauseMr. Patel made the credit check and thus claimant was not allowed to take the car before makingthe credit check11. Here, judgement was given that there should be no distinction made within thecontracts made inter absentes and contract inter praesentes. Shogun Finance v Hudson (2003). Another case regarding mistaken identity was the case of Phillips v Brooks Ltd. In suchcase, the English Contract Law concerns the mistake and also held responsible that a person isdeemed to enter into the contract with the person in front of them unless they can substantiallyprove that they instead intending to deal with another person12. On 15 April 1918, there was aman named Mr. North entered into Phillip's jewellery shop and thus said that he is Sir GeorgeBullough. Thus, it given wrong identity as the mistaken the other party by giving wrong name.Then he provided a cheque for Pound 3000 for buying certain pearls and a ring. He also providedhis wrong address that he lives in St. Jame's Square. However, Mr. Phillips checked the phonedirectory and thus found that there was some person with the same name. After checking thename, owner of the shop Mr. Phillips asked that if he would like to take the jewellery with himand Mr. North was a fraud person said he would leave the pearls but take the ring due to hiswife's birthday tomorrow. Later, Mr. North pawned the ring to Brooks Ltd and obtain Pound350. Later, the cheque was dishonoured and then Phillips sued Brooks Ltd to get the ring back.Thus, it can be identified from the facts that it was a clear case of mistaken identity as the fraudperson here in the case who is Mr. North and thus gives wrong identity13. The mistake here foundwas unilateral and thus court decide that the contract was not void.Phillips v. Brooks (1919).Similarly, there is another case regarding mistaken identity in which a rogue orderedgoods from the claimant with the help of using a printed letter head and thus claims to be thecompany called Hallum & Co. whose offices are in Belfast and Ghent. It was a fraudulent actionas no such company exists in real. Without knowing such fact the claimant sent the goods on10 Eran Vigoda-Gadot and Itai Beeri. Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in publicadministration: The power of leadership and the cost of organizational politics [2012] Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory 22(3) pp.573-596.11Atul Porwal and Kasun N Hewage. Building Information Modeling (BIM) partnering framework forpublic construction projects [2013] Automation in Construction 31 pp.204-214.12 Helen Walker and Stephen Brammer. The relationship between sustainable procurement and e-procurement in the public sector [2012] International Journal of Production Economics 140(1) pp.256-26813 Bunni Nael. The FIDIC forms of contract. [2013] John Wiley & Sons.3
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Report on Tort of Negligence and Mispresentation of Informationlg...
|9
|2788
|66
[doc] Business laws assignment samplelg...
|12
|2567
|58