Agreement In Mistake

In this case, Lindsay & Co were selling tissues to a villain who claimed to be an existing and serious Blenkiron & Co company (they acted by mail order). The contract was cancelled due to an error because Lindsay & Co intended to enter into a contract with Blenkiron & Co, not with the villain. Lindsay & Co was able to retrieve the tissues from a third party who had bought them from the villain (the villain did not have a good title to pass it on to him). There was a latent ambiguity in the contract – the parties were actually referring to different ships. They had gone amicably and had not reached an agreement at all. Proof of intent must be convincing to overcome the presumption that written contracts are an authentic and accurate record of what has been agreed. In the event of an error, this intention is not recorded in the written agreement and therefore does not contain a true record of the agreement concluded. The law of error comprises a set of separate rules in English contract law. If the law considers that an error is sufficiently serious, a contract concluded as a result of the error may not be concluded. An error is a misunderstanding by one or more contracting parties.

There are essentially three types of errors in the treaty: if only one party is wrong, the error is a « unilateral error » of the law. A unilateral error of law can only be reversed if the other party knows the error of law of the resigning party, but does not correct and does not take advantage of it or wrongly takes advantage of it. See Code Civ. § 1578 (2). For example, if a husband and wife entered into a conjugality agreement on the basis of the misunderstanding of life-related property rights and the husband did not correct their misunderstanding or if he did not cause this misunderstanding through his own fault, the wife has the right to annul the conjugality agreement because of his unilateral error of law. See, for example.B. Simmons v. Briggs (1924) 69 Cal. App. 447. If a unilateral error occurs during the negotiation, this may affect the outcome of the contract. It may be, but it is not always unfair for one party to understand the treaty while the other party does not.

. . .