Contract Law & Mistake Defense

The assignment presents two scenarios related to contract law, focusing on the defense of mistake. The first scenario involves Ben claiming a mistake in entering into a contract. The second scenario examines a dispute over ownership of a car due to a mistaken identity during negotiations between Gordon and Mary. The analysis delves into legal principles governing mistake in contract formation, drawing upon landmark cases like King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd and Phillips v Brooks, to determine the validity of each party's claim.

Running head: FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW
Fundamentals of law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW
Question 1
Issue 1
The issue which has to be determined in relation to the given scenario is that whether a claim for
a breach of contract can be brought by Ian against Ben. This would be done through analyzing
whether a contract has been formed between Ian and Ben or not.
Rules
A contract only comes to an existence when the elements offer and acceptance are addressed
appropriately in accordance to the legal provisions associated with them.
An offer is an expression made by a person to another so that the other person may willingly
accept its terms. An offer is differentiated from an invitation to deal (having no legal
significance) based on the completeness of the expression.
As provided in the case of AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter (1977) 1 BLR 9454 an offer is
complete when it consists of elements like nature of services to be provided, time and date of
services, price to be paid and a time period till which an offer can be accepted. In addition in the
case of Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424 it was
ruled by the court that if a reasonable person is induced by wordings of the expression to enter
the agreement it would be a complete offer.
An offer comes to an end through the process of revocation. One of the forms of revocation of an
offer is through its rejection. In the case of Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344 it
was ruled by the court that as soon as the offer is rejected impliedly or expressly it comes to an
end.

2
FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW
According to the rules of postal rule stated in Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681 as soon
as the letter is posted it constitutes an acceptance. Similar provisions are applicable in relation to
an email as provided in the case of Thomas & anr v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306
Application
In the given situation a valid offer had been made by Ben to Ian which had to be accepted before
1st may. The offer was in relation to giving a speech for an event. This was a complete offer as a
reasonable person would be induced to get into the contract through its words as it contained
price, date and nature of services to be provided and thus was a complete offer in nature.
However Ian notified Ben that he is likely to be unavailable for the event as he was hoping to be
selected to give speech in another event on the same date. This expression of Ian expressly
accounts to the rejection of the offer which means that it has been revoked and has come to an
end according to the rules of revocation as discussed above.
It had been provided by Ian that he may notify Ben in case there was a change in the
circumstances. The notification had been made through an email by Ian. However such
notification would have been a new offer made by Ian as the original offer has already ceased to
exists.
Ian had made an email which stated that he wants to accept the offer and provide the speech as
he was not selected for the event. However the email was not read by Ben as it was transferred to
the spam folder of the email. Although the email accounts to a valid acceptance through the
postal rule according to which the acceptance was valid as soon as the email had been made by
Ian, as the offer has already elapsed it cannot be accepted by Ian any longer.

3
FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW
Conclusion
As the acceptance of Ian was after the offer had been rejected it does not form a contract between
Ian and Ben.
Issue 2
Whether there is a contract between Ben and Sharon
Rules
It is a general rule in the law of contacts that it is not necessary for a contract to be in writing in
order to be binding.
As stated in the case of Wood v Scarth (1858) 1 F&F 293 a contract can only take place
between the parties if they have agreed upon the same thing in the same sense also know as
consensus ad idem or the meeting of minds.
In the case of King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd (1897) TLR 98 it was
ruled by the court that where the parties are mistaken in relation to the facts of the case the
contract may be void or may be voidable upon the option of the parties. The mistaken can lead to
the recession of the contract if it can be proved that the mistake was in relation to a material
aspect of the contract.
In the case of Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 the court ruled that the where the parties
are dealing through correspondences the mistake as to the identity of the parties will make the
contract void.

4
FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW
In case of a mistake the court may also provide a remedy in relation to equity for any loss which
has been faced by the parties to the contract as provided by Webster v Cecil (1861) 30 Beav 62
Application
In the given situation it has been provided that Ben has approached Sharon to provide a speech in
his educational institution. The speech is in relation to the subject of astronomy. However Sharon
mistakenly believes that the speech is in relation to astrology and accepts the contract.
In the above discussion it has been provided that were there is no meeting of minds and a
common mistake exits than the contract can be avoided and the parties to it can claim such
situation as a defense.
Here Ben believed that Sharon was a astronomy expert and offered the speech to her, whereas
she was an astrology expert. In addition Sharon accepted the contract as she believed that the
speech was in relation to astrology. Thus there is mistake on the part of both the parties to the
contract. Therefore in the given situation Ben can claim common mistake as a defense and
Sharon can get some compensation as per the rules of equity
The contract not being in writing does not have any legal issues
Conclusion
Ben can claim the defense in from of mistake under contract law.

5
FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW
Question 2
Issue
The issue which needs to be determined in relation to the scenario is that whether Cheng’s or
Gordon’s claim is stronger in relation to the car
Rule
In case a contract has been entered upon by two parties and one of them had a belief that the
other was a third party (which means any other person) a mistake in relation to identity takes
place. There is a distinction made by law in relation to such position where the parties are present
or absent during the negotiation.
In the case of King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd the aggrieved party had
a belief that it was dealing with a reputable firm whereas the firm was rough the court held the
contract to be valid as the mistake was related to attributes and not identity.
In case the parties were physically present and the above discussed mistake needs to be
established it has to be shown by the innocent party that they had the intention of dealing with
some other person, the other party had knowledge in relation to such intentions, the identity was
regarded as very crucial to the contract and reasonable steps had been taken by them in relation
to the verification of the identity as provided in Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243
In the case Lake v Simmons [1927] AC 487 of it had been ruled by the court that where the
possessions of the goods have passed to an innocent party before the contract is avoided the third
party would have a good title to such goods.

6
FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW
Application
In the given situation it is event that Gordon had the intention of dealing with the Mayor of the
city and not Mary. Mary also had the knowledge if such intentions of Gordan in relation to given
the car prior to payment. The negotiations took place between the parties in physical presence of
each other. Thus there was a mistake in identity and the contract should be void. However
Gordon did not take reasonable steps to verify that the Mary was the mayor of the town. He
concluded the fact based on unsure assumptions. Thus the contract can be declared as voidable
and not void.
Further through the application of the Simmons case it can be provided that as the contract
between Gordon and Mary was voidable and was not avoided before the car had been sold to
Cheng, the title of the car would be bestowed on Cheng Lawfully
Conclusion
Therefore from the above discussion it can be concluded that Cheng’s claim would be stronger
than Gordon according to the rules of contract

7
FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW
References
Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
AGC (Advances) Ltd v McWhirter (1977) 1 BLR 9454
Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) LR 5 CPD 344
Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459
King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett Co Ltd (1897) TLR 98
Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243
Thomas & anr v BPE Solicitors [2010] EWHC 306
Webster v Cecil (1861) 30 Beav 62
Wood v Scarth (1858) 1 F&F 293