Legal Advice on Contract Formation and Mistakes

BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW
[Document subtitle]
0
[DATE]
Grizli777
[Company address]

Issue
Legal advice needs to be drawn to Dan for the following issues.
Whether there is a legal contract between Mary and Dan irrespective of the presence of
mutual mistake?
Whether Michael and Dan have entered into contract for Toyota CX considering that Michael
has revoked the offer?
Whether the contract formed by Gordon and Dan is enforceable despite the fact that Dan has
mistakenly signed the contract?
Whether Edgar and Dan are bound with contract despite that Dan’s worker has negligently
put wrong sticker on the windshield of 2014 Holden Statesman.
Law
There are mainly three types of mistakes with different implications for contract enactment.
Mutual mistakes are those in which both the contracting parties are involved in the mistake.
The most common mutual mistake incurred by the parties is related to the object of the
contract. When there is a mutual mistake, then the contract would be classified as void
contract and parties would not be liable to satisfy any contractual obligations (Latimer, 2016,
p. 103). The Raffles v Wichelhaus(1864) 2 Hurl & C 906 case is the testimony of this
underlying fact that no contract would be formed between the parties when both the parties
have done mutual mistake (Carter, 2016, p. 91).
Communication of the acceptance is an essential aspect of contract formation. The offer is
considered to be valid when the offeree has received the offer letter. However, acceptance
would be said valid when the concerned offeree has posted the acceptance letter into the post
box. The verdict of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 250 case is the evidence of this. Further,
it is noteworthy that once the original offer is accepted and same is communicated through
post, then the offeror cannot revoke the offer (Davenport and Parker, 2014, p. 114).
Unilateral mistake reflects a scenario in which only one party is at fault and makes the
mistake in the contract enactment. In this scenario, it is essential on behalf of the other
contractual party who has knowledge about the mistake to notify the mistaken party about the
unilateral mistake. The judgement of Cundy v. Lindsay (1878) 3 App. Cas. 459 case is the
1