387:, a popular actor, told the plaintiff who had advertised to the sale of his car and offered to buy it for the advertised price, 450 pounds. Subsequently, the rogue appended his signature that clearly displayed "R. A. Green" on a cheque which he presented to the seller; as a result, he was granted the chance of taking away the car. The cheque bounced and the buyer was indeed not Richard Green. He sold the car to one Averay, a third party who purchased the car in honesty. In an action brought against Averay for conversion, the Court of Appeal, following Phillips v. Brooks and disregarding Ingram v. Little held that despite his mistake, the plaintiff had completed a contract with the rogue.
260:
in which the contract was made. There are two types: (1) Contract made inter absentes, when the parties do not meet face-to-face, e.g. through correspondence; and (2) Contract made inter praesentes—when the parties meet face-to-face One commentator states "'here are few more vexed areas of contract law' than mistake of identity." The
English approach provides less protection to the purchaser from a rogue than American law.
259:
Mistake as to identity occurs when one party – usually deceived by a "rogue" – believes themselves to be bargaining with another, uninvolved, third party. In a typical situation of this kind, the contract will either be void for mistake, or voidable for fraud. Such a distinction depends on the manner
48:
is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms or subject-matter. The courts will uphold such a contract unless it was determined that the non-mistaken party was aware of the mistake and tried to take advantage of the mistake. It is also possible for a contract to be void if there
66:
is when both parties of a contract are mistaken as to the terms. Each believes they are contracting to something different. The court usually tries to uphold such a mistake if a reasonable interpretation of the terms can be found. However, a contract based on a mutual mistake in judgement does not
294:
14 TLR 98: In a situation similar to the preceding case, except that rogue used the name of a non-existent company. The seller could not claim they had intended to contract with the non-existent company, so the contract was merely voidable for fraud, and the third party obtained good title to the
339:
and in favour of the principle that all mistakes for identity merely render a contract voidable; for instance, Lord
Nicholls argued that the loss should be borne by the seller, "who takes the risks inherent in parting with his goods without receiving payment", rather than by the innocent third
284:). The contract was held to be void for mistake because Lindsay & Co had intended to contract with Blenkiron & Co, not the rogue. Lindsay & Co were able to recover the handkerchiefs from a third party who had purchased them from the rogue (as the rogue did not have good
91:, which established that common mistake can only void a contract if the mistake of the subject-matter was sufficiently fundamental to render its identity different from what was contracted, making the performance of the contract impossible. This is similar to
57:
held that the contract can only be avoided if the plaintiff can show that, at the time of agreement, the plaintiff believed the other party's identity was of vital importance. A mere mistaken belief as to the credibility of the other party is not
154:
421:
630:
475:
146:
362:
In a contract was made face to face, the court presumed that the seller intended to contract with the person in front of them, so the contract was not void for mistake to identity.
170:
280:
3 App Cas 459: In this leading case, Lindsay & Co sold handkerchiefs to a rogue pretending to be an existent and reputable firm
Blenkiron & Co (they were dealing by
162:
637:
618:
178:
676:
583:
547:
367:
313:
185:
138:
775:
455:
195:, where there is a mistake as to the title/name of an involved party (where the subject matter already belongs to oneself for example):
813:
662:
106:
846:
841:
886:
861:
27:. If the law deems a mistake to be sufficiently grave, then a contract entered into on the grounds of the mistake may be
768:
436:
818:
712:
922:
917:
833:
250:
953:
937:
268:
A Contract made inter absentes occurs when the parties do not meet face-to-face, e.g. through correspondence.
990:
761:
684:
591:
555:
134:
AC 161 (contract upheld despite mistake if the mistake is not "fundamental to the identity of the contract")
851:
803:
397:
323:
299:
932:
92:
85:
is where both parties hold the same mistaken belief of the facts. This is demonstrated in the case of
891:
533:
87:
868:
798:
912:
808:
254:
123:
39:
by one or more parties to a contract. There are essentially three types of mistakes in contract:
225:
s. 6 (contract for sale of goods void if the goods have perished without the seller's knowledge)
823:
222:
32:
20:
896:
784:
519:
236:
111:
73:
24:
974:
J Cartwright, 'Solle v
Butcher and the Doctrine of Mistake in Contract' (1987) 103 LQR 594
8:
726:
215:
115:
878:
44:
656:
354:
130:
971:
P Atiyah and F Bennion, 'Mistake in the
Construction of Contracts' (1961) 24 MLR 421
349:
A contract made inter praesentes occurs when the parties meet face-to-face. Cases:
856:
469:
285:
281:
698:
605:
569:
413:
276:
200:
219:(contract for sale of corn void due to decay of the corn, unknown to the seller)
495:
405:
384:
375:
318:
81:
62:
984:
328:
36:
95:, except that the event precedes, rather than follows the time of agreement.
620:
with reference: "MacMillan CLJ 711. See also
Goodhart (1941) 57 LQR 228."
332:
54:
49:
was a mistake in the identity of the contracting party. An example is in
753:
476:
Amalgamated
Investment and Property Co Ltd v John Walker & Sons Ltd
28:
311:
have had a difficult co-existence which has led to confusion (e.g.
68:
713:"King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge Merrett and Co LTD: CA 1879"
171:
Great Peace
Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd
155:
Associated
Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord
977:
P Matthews, 'A Note on Cooper v. Phibbs' (1989) 105 LQR 599
317:,) the principle was upheld by a 3:2 majority in the
390:
292:King's Norton Metal Co v Edridge Merrett & Co
244:
982:
117:
769:
71:by the party that is adversely affected. See
456:F.E. Rose (London) Ltd v WH Pim & Co Ltd
422:Clarion Ltd v National Provident Institution
210:, where the subject matter does not exist:
776:
762:
107:McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission
783:
335:argued strongly for the abandonment of
23:comprises a group of separate rules in
983:
661:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
757:
147:Nicholson & Venn v Smith-Marriot
344:
13:
437:Saunders v Anglia Building Society
14:
1002:
429:
263:
240:(1864) 2 H & C906; 159 ER 375
229:
99:
448:
251:Misrepresentation in English law
742:
733:
719:
705:
691:
669:
623:
612:
598:
576:
562:
540:
526:
512:
500:
489:
391:Unilateral mistake as to terms
245:Unilateral mistake to identity
1:
965:
857:Good faith & fair dealing
677:"Mistake Law | Contract Law"
584:"Mistake Law | Contract Law"
548:"Mistake Law | Contract Law"
523:(1864) 2 Hurl. & C. 906.
398:Hartog v Colin & Shields
7:
814:Creation of legal relations
463:
324:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
300:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
10:
1007:
383:A rogue impersonating one
248:
946:
905:
877:
832:
791:
534:Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd
88:Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd
67:cause the contract to be
906:Setting aside a contract
727:"Kings Norton v Edridge"
483:
255:Nemo dat quod non habet
847:Interpreting contracts
842:Incorporation of terms
223:Sale of Goods Act 1979
862:Unfair contract terms
163:Brennan v Bolt Burdon
112:[1951] HCA 79
991:English contract law
897:Specific performance
785:English contract law
687:on 15 February 2015.
594:on 15 February 2015.
558:on 15 February 2015.
520:Raffles v Wichelhaus
288:to pass on to them).
237:Raffles v Wichelhaus
74:Raffles v Wichelhaus
25:English contract law
918:Iniquitous pressure
809:Promissory estoppel
715:. 27 November 2020.
699:"Contract: Mistake"
606:"Contract: Mistake"
570:"Contract: Mistake"
303:1 AC 919: Although
216:Courturier v Hastie
179:Galloway v Galloway
150:(1947) 177 L.T. 189
887:Measure of damages
879:Breach of contract
681:www.lawteacher.net
588:www.lawteacher.net
552:www.lawteacher.net
409:(1871) LR 6 QB 597
327:. The minority of
45:Unilateral mistake
16:Term of art in law
962:
961:
923:Misrepresentation
834:Contractual terms
537:All ER 1, AC 161
355:Phillips v Brooks
309:Phillips v Brooks
131:Bell v Lever Bros
998:
778:
771:
764:
755:
754:
749:
746:
740:
737:
731:
730:
723:
717:
716:
709:
703:
702:
695:
689:
688:
683:. Archived from
673:
667:
666:
660:
652:
650:
648:
643:on 20 April 2017
642:
636:. Archived from
635:
627:
621:
616:
610:
609:
602:
596:
595:
590:. Archived from
580:
574:
573:
566:
560:
559:
554:. Archived from
544:
538:
530:
524:
516:
510:
504:
498:
493:
470:English tort law
345:Inter praesentes
119:
35:is an incorrect
1006:
1005:
1001:
1000:
999:
997:
996:
995:
981:
980:
968:
963:
958:
942:
938:Undue influence
901:
873:
828:
787:
782:
752:
747:
743:
738:
734:
725:
724:
720:
711:
710:
706:
697:
696:
692:
675:
674:
670:
654:
653:
646:
644:
640:
633:
631:"Archived copy"
629:
628:
624:
617:
613:
604:
603:
599:
582:
581:
577:
568:
567:
563:
546:
545:
541:
531:
527:
517:
513:
505:
501:
494:
490:
486:
466:
451:
432:
414:Solle v Butcher
393:
368:Ingram v Little
347:
337:Cundy v Lindsay
314:Ingram v Little
305:Cundy v Lindsay
277:Cundy v Lindsay
266:
257:
247:
232:
201:Cooper v Phibbs
186:Scott v Coulson
102:
55:Lord Denning MR
17:
12:
11:
5:
1004:
994:
993:
979:
978:
975:
972:
967:
964:
960:
959:
957:
956:
950:
948:
944:
943:
941:
940:
935:
930:
925:
920:
915:
909:
907:
903:
902:
900:
899:
894:
889:
883:
881:
875:
874:
872:
871:
866:
865:
864:
859:
849:
844:
838:
836:
830:
829:
827:
826:
821:
816:
811:
806:
801:
795:
793:
789:
788:
781:
780:
773:
766:
758:
751:
750:
741:
732:
718:
704:
690:
668:
622:
611:
597:
575:
561:
539:
525:
511:
507:Lewis v Averay
499:
496:Smith v Hughes
487:
485:
482:
481:
480:
472:
465:
462:
461:
460:
450:
447:
446:
445:
431:
430:Non Est Factum
428:
427:
426:
418:
410:
406:Smith v Hughes
402:
401:3 All E.R. 566
392:
389:
385:Richard Greene
381:
380:
376:Lewis v Averay
372:
360:
359:
346:
343:
342:
341:
319:House of Lords
296:
289:
282:correspondence
265:
264:Inter absentes
262:
246:
243:
242:
241:
231:
230:Mutual mistake
228:
227:
226:
220:
205:
204:
190:
189:
182:
175:
167:
159:
151:
143:
139:Grist v Bailey
135:
127:
101:
100:Common mistake
98:
97:
96:
82:Common mistake
78:
63:Mutual mistake
59:
51:Lewis v Averay
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1003:
992:
989:
988:
986:
976:
973:
970:
969:
955:
952:
951:
949:
945:
939:
936:
934:
931:
929:
926:
924:
921:
919:
916:
914:
911:
910:
908:
904:
898:
895:
893:
890:
888:
885:
884:
882:
880:
876:
870:
867:
863:
860:
858:
855:
854:
853:
852:Implied terms
850:
848:
845:
843:
840:
839:
837:
835:
831:
825:
822:
820:
817:
815:
812:
810:
807:
805:
804:Consideration
802:
800:
797:
796:
794:
790:
786:
779:
774:
772:
767:
765:
760:
759:
756:
745:
736:
728:
722:
714:
708:
700:
694:
686:
682:
678:
672:
664:
658:
639:
632:
626:
619:
615:
607:
601:
593:
589:
585:
579:
571:
565:
557:
553:
549:
543:
536:
535:
529:
522:
521:
515:
508:
503:
497:
492:
488:
478:
477:
473:
471:
468:
467:
458:
457:
453:
452:
449:Rectification
443:
442:Gallie v. Lee
439:
438:
434:
433:
424:
423:
419:
416:
415:
411:
408:
407:
403:
400:
399:
395:
394:
388:
386:
378:
377:
373:
370:
369:
365:
364:
363:
357:
356:
352:
351:
350:
338:
334:
330:
329:Lord Nicholls
326:
325:
320:
316:
315:
310:
306:
302:
301:
297:
293:
290:
287:
283:
279:
278:
274:
273:
272:
269:
261:
256:
252:
239:
238:
234:
233:
224:
221:
218:
217:
213:
212:
211:
209:
203:
202:
198:
197:
196:
194:
188:
187:
183:
181:
180:
176:
173:
172:
168:
165:
164:
160:
157:
156:
152:
149:
148:
144:
141:
140:
136:
133:
132:
128:
125:
121:
113:
109:
108:
104:
103:
94:
90:
89:
84:
83:
79:
76:
75:
70:
65:
64:
60:
56:
52:
47:
46:
42:
41:
40:
38:
37:understanding
34:
30:
26:
22:
927:
744:
735:
721:
707:
693:
685:the original
680:
671:
645:. Retrieved
638:the original
625:
614:
600:
592:the original
587:
578:
564:
556:the original
551:
542:
532:
528:
518:
514:
509:3 All ER 907
506:
502:
491:
474:
454:
441:
435:
420:
412:
404:
396:
382:
374:
366:
361:
353:
348:
336:
333:Lord Millett
322:
321:decision of
312:
308:
304:
298:
291:
275:
270:
267:
258:
235:
214:
208:Res extincta
207:
206:
199:
192:
191:
184:
177:
169:
161:
153:
145:
137:
129:
126:(Australia).
105:
86:
80:
72:
61:
50:
43:
18:
933:Frustration
93:frustration
58:sufficient.
19:The law of
966:References
892:Remoteness
459:2 Q.B. 450
444:) AC 1004
425:1 WLR 1888
249:See also:
166:3 WLR 1321
124:High Court
116:(1951) 84
869:Penalties
819:Certainty
799:Agreement
792:Formation
479:1 WLR 164
379:3 WLR 603
158:1 WLR 255
985:Category
913:Capacity
748:1 AC 919
657:cite web
647:19 April
464:See also
417:1 KB 671
358:2 KB 243
69:voidable
954:History
928:Mistake
824:Privity
739:1 QB 31
371:1 QB 31
271:Cases:
193:Res sua
33:mistake
21:mistake
340:party.
295:goods.
174:QB 679
142:Ch 532
53:where
947:Other
641:(PDF)
634:(PDF)
484:Notes
286:title
110:
663:link
649:2017
331:and
307:and
253:and
31:. A
29:void
120:377
118:CLR
987::
679:.
659:}}
655:{{
586:.
550:.
122:,
114:,
777:e
770:t
763:v
729:.
701:.
665:)
651:.
608:.
572:.
440:(
77:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.