This document provides legal advice on contract formation and mistakes in business and corporations law. It discusses the implications of mutual, unilateral, and mistake in contract enactment. It also provides case examples and references to support the information.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
BUSINESS AND CORPORATIONS LAW [Document subtitle] 0 [DATE] Grizli777 [Company address]
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
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). TheRaffles 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 ofAdams 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 ofCundy v. Lindsay(1878) 3 App. Cas. 459 case is the 1
evidence of this. Further, if written contract has been signed mistakenly by one of the parties then specific rule would be used to defend the rights of the mistaken party (Lindgren, 2014, p. 110). These rules are highlighted in ‘non est factum.’ The contractual liabilities would be nullified in this special rule only when there was disability existing at the time of signing of the contract, person is not able to understand the context of the document of the contract and signed different document (Gibson and Fraser, 2014, p. 97). Any sticker/display which reflects the price of the object does not contain an offer unless it has included ‘FOR SALE’ along with the respective price. Any sticker with price only represents that that it is mere invitation to treat which means the interested parties can reach the seller and offer their quote for the object. The seller has the rights to accept or reject the offer of the buyer as evident from the verdict ofPharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists[1953] 1 QB 401. No contract is formed between the parties if the seller has denied the offer from the buyer (Carter, 2016, p. 79). Application Mary has made an offer to purchase Honda Jazz (Assuming white colour) for $14,000 and Dan has accepted the offer to sell Honda Jazz (Assuming red colour). Further, at the time of contract formation, both the parties did not clarify the colour of car which is considered to be a mutual mistake. Hence, the formed contract would be classified as void and no contractual liability would arise for any of the parties. Michael has offered to buy truck from Dan for $18,000 on January 2. He has also mentioned that if Dan was ready to sell the truck for this amount then he must sign the letter and post him back. The letter was received by Dan on January 7 and thus, the offer becomes enforceable. On the same day, Dan has accepted offer and signed it and put the signed offer letter into post box. The moment when he posted the acceptance for the offer then only the acceptance become valid and contract is formed between them. Furthermore, on January 8, Michael has changed her mind and telephoned Dan that the offer is not available for acceptance.Here,Michaelcannotcanceltheofferbecauseasperthepostalruleof communication, the acceptance became valid on January 7 and both the parties have already entered into contract already. It is apparent that Dan has signed the contract mistakenly because he did not have any willingness to sell the truck which he reserved for his nephew. Further, Gordon also does not have any knowledge that Dan has mistakenly signed the contract and hence, ‘Non-est factum’ 2
can be used through which Dan can defend himself from contractual liabilities. However, there is no disability, understating or different document and hence, Dan cannot get any relief from this special rule. It is evident that Dan has acted negligently and signed the contract without reading and thus, contract has been enacted between Gordan and Dan. Dan’s worker has mistakenly put the wrong sticker saying $10,000 on the windshield of 2014 Holden Stateman which does not contain any offer related to the sale of the car. Edger has conveyed his willingness to purchase the car for $10,000. However, Dan has informed him that it is not an offer and rather just invitation to treat. Thus, the conveyed acceptance of Edger is actually an offer and also, Dan can reject the offer of Edgar. Thus, no contractual liabilities are enforceable on Dan and Edger. Conclusion The enacted contract will be termed as void and no contractual liability would be raised on Mary and Dan. Michael and Dan are bounded with an enforceable contract as Dan has accepted the offer and posted on January 7 before Michael could revoke it. Contractual liabilities would be applicable on Dan and Gordon because Dan has signed the contract for wrong truck in negligence. Edgar and Dan have not enacted a valid contract because sticker on the windshield is invitation to treat and not offer. 3
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
References Carter, J. (2016).Contract Act in Australia,3rded. Sydney: LexisNexis Publications. Davenport,S.andParker,D.(2014).BusinessandLawinAustralia,2nded. Sydney:LexisNexis Publications. Gibson, A. and Fraser, D. (2014).Business Law,8thed. Sydney: Pearson Publications. Latimer, P. (2016).Australian Business Law, 11thed. Sydney: LexisNexis Study Guide. Lindgren, K.E. (2014).Vermeesch and Lindgren's Business Law of Australia,12thed.Sydney: LexisNexis Publications 4