100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Mistake Essay Plan £7.49
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Cambridge University (CAM)
  4.  
  5. Law
  6.  
  7. Contract law

Essay

Mistake Essay Plan

 0 purchase

A complete contract law essay plan on the doctrine of mistake. Complete with secondary sources and case law. Received a first-class mark from Cambridge University!

Preview 1 out of 3  pages

Document information

  • September 26, 2020
  • 3
  • 2017/2018
  • Essay
  • Unknown
  • Unknown

Subjects

Written for

All documents for this subject (20)

Seller

avatar-seller
am_lawgraduate

Reviews received

Content preview

MISTAKE ESSAY PLAN
DO WE NEED THE DOCTRINE OF MISTAKE?

Unifying feature of doctrine – leads to contract being void ab initio
- Logical implication of absent of consent necessary for contractual obligation – it is ‘nullified’; “greatest defect that can occur in
the contract”

But – could be argued that mistake = unsuccessful synthesis. A number of problems are being addressed using just one category & it is
unnecessary
- These problems would be better understood if they were disaggregated

Break down the different categories
1. Where one party’s mistake is taken advantage of by the other
- Akin to misrep
- Courts use flexible concepts and discretionary remedies to fashion appropriate relief
- This produces tension with automatic ‘voidness’ in mistake category

2. Considers problems in the formation of contracts
- Little scope of unilateral contracts; only when the non-mistaken party knows that the other is mistaken about terms of contract
will the mistake prevent formation

3. Common mistake
- No doubt that an agreement was reached – so category is quite distinct
- Justifying legal intervention poses similar problems to the doctrine of frustration



Voidness and Voidability

 Debate isn’t just abstract – it has practical significance.
 Automatic voidness = drastic remedy

Alternative approach to mistake:
 Locate it firmly within equity’s concern with unconscionable behaviour rather than having a fundamental effect on consent
 So by analogy with situations like undue influence, the contract would be voidable i.e. liable to rescission
 Even today – mistakes induced by fraud or misrep lead to rescission under those doctrines
 So mistake lives on in equity, although disconnected rather than forming a doctrine
o Solle v Butcher; ‘doctrine of common mistake in equity’; rejected by TGP case

Catherine McMillan
 Modern law of mistake came about by mistake; equitable mistake was neglected and forgotten
 Treatise writers (Pollock) were keen to restructure law of contract using the Will Theory. This was poorly executed
- P found equity peculiar and so overlooked and marginalised equitable rules. So P was clear that the effect of
mistake was to render the contract a nullity from the beginning
- But it didn’t occur to P the invidious results that would occur in commercial practice. P didn’t offer guidance on
how to distinguish mistakes (rendering contract void) from fraud or misrep (rendering contract voidable)
- Will Theory = subjectivist theory
- Later, P endorsed objective view of contract. However, his chapter on mistake remained unchanged, becoming an
“intellectual orphan”.

 Bell v Lever Bros marked the “birth of a doctrine of contractual mistake based on a failure of consent. Lord Atkin made P’s
theory law”. But – judges didn’t have to adopt P’s view so why did they?
 McMillan’s thesis: the result has been a doctrine that is “dangerously unreliable”. Doctrine of mistake has shallow roots and no
good justification to begin with


Tetternborn: Immediate Voidness
Argues for liberalisation of mistake
 You can only bring doctrine of mistake before performance has begun
 Seems like arbitrary distinction: a mistaken seller might seem no less deserving of relief a minute after than a minute before
delivery. But this isn’t arbitrary: “a person’s moral claim to keep what they already have ought to be regarded as stronger than
a claim to get what you might be entitled to”
 Easier than unwinding partly executed transactions

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller am_lawgraduate. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

66902 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling
£7.49
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added