Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
McRae v Commonwealth |
bilateral mistake - if there is no guarantee the subject matter exists, mistake does not affect the contract |
|
Coutterier v Hastie |
bilateral mistake - since the subject matter did not exist at the time of contracting, neither did the contract - s6 Sale of goods act |
|
cooper v philips |
bilateral mistake - mistake as to title - legal impossibility |
|
diamond v british columbia breeder's society |
- mistake to identity - Claim failed since it was more about the quality of the subject matter. the horse was in the ring where defendant could see, so not reasonable |
|
griffins v bryner |
commercial impossibility - contract made at 11am, but decision to cancel the procession was at 10am |
|
Great Peace shipping |
1. common assumption state of affairs exists 2. no warranty that it exists 3. the non-existence of state of affairs must not be fault of any party 4. the non-existence state of affairs must make the contract impossible to perform |
|
leaf v international galleries |
not void = he wanted a painting and he got a painting mistake to quality not operative |
|
bell v lever bros |
in equity, mistake to quality may operative, and contract voidable lord atkin "essentially and radically different" |
|
raffles v wichehaulus |
mutual mistake if promises are so contradictory to make performance impossible, and courts unable to find common intention = void |
|
sciven bros v hidley |
mutual mistake ambiguity surrounding the subject matter = void |
|
smith v hughes |
mistake as to terms of contract - objective test: would a reasonable reader understand? |
|
harlog v collins and shield |
- defendant knew claimant made a mistake as to terms = cannot accept contract -sell product per pound, instead of per piece |
|
dennant v skinner |
a party who accepts a bid at public auction cannot say identity of party is of vital importance |
|
cundy v lindsay |
void = there was a party whom the claimants wished to contract - showed existing business |
|
king north metal case |
not void = the mistake was not of the identity but to the attributes of the company - lack of intention to contract with particular company |
|
phillips v brookes |
not void = the jewellers were unable to demonstrate that they would only sell the ring to the rouge's false identity |
|
shogun fiance |
void = identity was of key importance since shogun did a search - took reasonable steps |
|
saunders v angel building society |
the face to the face principle will only exist for people who are able to read documents void = contract radically different to what she believed = poor eyesight |