On the basis of judicial decisions, the mistakes which may be covered under this condition may broadly be put into the following heads
(a) Mistake as to the existence of the subject-matter of the agreement. If at the time of the agreement and unknown to parties, the subject-matter of the agreement has ceased to exist, or if it has never been in existence, then the agreement is void (Bell vs Lever Bros.).
Illustrations :(a) A agrees to sell to B a specific cargo of goods supposed to be on is way from England to Bombay. it turns out that, before the day of the bargain, the ship conveying the cargo had been cast away, and the goods lost. Neither party was aware of these facts. The agreement is void. (b) A. agrees to buy from B a certain horse. It turns out that the horse was dead” at the time of-the bargain, though neither party was aware of the fact. The agreement is void.
(b) Mistake as to the identity of the subject-matter. “ Where both parties are working under mistake as to the identity of the subject matter i. e., one, party had one thing in mind and the other party had another, the agreement is void for want of consensus-ad-idem
(c) Mistake as to the title of the subject-matter. Normally a mistake as to ‘title of the seller’ does not affect the validity of the contract because Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, imposes an implied ‘condition’s to the title of the seller in a contract of sale, unless otherwise agreed. Accordingly, a .seller is taken to warrant his title to the property sold and he may be made liable in damages for breach of the condition, even though both the parties contract under a mistaken belief as to the title of the seller.
(a) Mistake as to the existence of the subject-matter of the agreement. If at the time of the agreement and unknown to parties, the subject-matter of the agreement has ceased to exist, or if it has never been in existence, then the agreement is void (Bell vs Lever Bros.).
Illustrations :(a) A agrees to sell to B a specific cargo of goods supposed to be on is way from England to Bombay. it turns out that, before the day of the bargain, the ship conveying the cargo had been cast away, and the goods lost. Neither party was aware of these facts. The agreement is void. (b) A. agrees to buy from B a certain horse. It turns out that the horse was dead” at the time of-the bargain, though neither party was aware of the fact. The agreement is void.
(b) Mistake as to the identity of the subject-matter. “ Where both parties are working under mistake as to the identity of the subject matter i. e., one, party had one thing in mind and the other party had another, the agreement is void for want of consensus-ad-idem
(c) Mistake as to the title of the subject-matter. Normally a mistake as to ‘title of the seller’ does not affect the validity of the contract because Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, imposes an implied ‘condition’s to the title of the seller in a contract of sale, unless otherwise agreed. Accordingly, a .seller is taken to warrant his title to the property sold and he may be made liable in damages for breach of the condition, even though both the parties contract under a mistaken belief as to the title of the seller.
It is only in a very special circumstance, where a person agrees to purchase property or goods which unknown to himself and the seller, is” his own already,’ that the agreement is void ab-initio and none of the parties can be made liable in damages.
Illustration. (a) A agreed to take a lease of fishery from B, though contrary to the belief of both parties at the time A was tenant for life by inheritance of the fishery and B had no title at all. It was held that the lease agreement was void (Copper vs Phibbs).
(d) Mistake as to the quantity of the Subject Matter. If both the parties are working under a mistake as to the quantity of the subject-matter, the agreement is void.
Illustration :P enquired about the price of rifles from H stating that he may buy as many as 50. H quoted the price. P telegraphed “Send three rifles.” The telegraph clerk transcribed the message as “Send the rifles.” H sent 50 rifles. P accepted only three and returned 47. H filed a suit for damages for non-acceptance of 47 rifles. It was held that there was no contract as there was no consent and it made no difference even if the mistake was caused by the negligence of a third party. Of course P must pay the price of three rifles accepted by him (Henkel vs Pope).
(e) Mistake as to the quality of the subject – matter. If there is a mutual mistake of both the parties as to the quality of the subject-matter I.e., if the subject-matter is something essentially different, from what the parties be- lieved it to be, the agreement is void.
Illustrations : (a) A set of table-linen was sold at an auction by a ‘description ‘with the crest of Charles I and the authentic property of that monarch.’ In.’ fact the linen was Georgian and there was a mutual mistake of both parties as to the quality of subject-matter. Held . the agreement was void ( Nicholson & I’enn. Vs Smith Marriott).
For, the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) clearly states that there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale and the buyer must be held to have taken the risk that the goods sold might prove defective or might in some way be different item that which the parties believed it to be, in the absence of any misrepresentation or guarantee by the seller.
Illustration. A sold certain seeds to B. Both parties honestly believed that the seeds were two years old. Actually the seeds proved to be only one year eleven months old. The contract cannot be avoided as the mistake does not affect the substance of the transaction.
(f) Mistaken assumption going to the root of agreement. Thus, where a man and woman entered into an agreement for separation on the erroneous assumption that their marriage was valid, the agreement was held void as the parties entered into the contract under a false and fundamental assumption that they were lawfully married. (Galloway vs Galloway).
Illustration. (a) A agreed to take a lease of fishery from B, though contrary to the belief of both parties at the time A was tenant for life by inheritance of the fishery and B had no title at all. It was held that the lease agreement was void (Copper vs Phibbs).
(d) Mistake as to the quantity of the Subject Matter. If both the parties are working under a mistake as to the quantity of the subject-matter, the agreement is void.
Illustration :P enquired about the price of rifles from H stating that he may buy as many as 50. H quoted the price. P telegraphed “Send three rifles.” The telegraph clerk transcribed the message as “Send the rifles.” H sent 50 rifles. P accepted only three and returned 47. H filed a suit for damages for non-acceptance of 47 rifles. It was held that there was no contract as there was no consent and it made no difference even if the mistake was caused by the negligence of a third party. Of course P must pay the price of three rifles accepted by him (Henkel vs Pope).
(e) Mistake as to the quality of the subject – matter. If there is a mutual mistake of both the parties as to the quality of the subject-matter I.e., if the subject-matter is something essentially different, from what the parties be- lieved it to be, the agreement is void.
Illustrations : (a) A set of table-linen was sold at an auction by a ‘description ‘with the crest of Charles I and the authentic property of that monarch.’ In.’ fact the linen was Georgian and there was a mutual mistake of both parties as to the quality of subject-matter. Held . the agreement was void ( Nicholson & I’enn. Vs Smith Marriott).
For, the principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) clearly states that there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale and the buyer must be held to have taken the risk that the goods sold might prove defective or might in some way be different item that which the parties believed it to be, in the absence of any misrepresentation or guarantee by the seller.
Illustration. A sold certain seeds to B. Both parties honestly believed that the seeds were two years old. Actually the seeds proved to be only one year eleven months old. The contract cannot be avoided as the mistake does not affect the substance of the transaction.
(f) Mistaken assumption going to the root of agreement. Thus, where a man and woman entered into an agreement for separation on the erroneous assumption that their marriage was valid, the agreement was held void as the parties entered into the contract under a false and fundamental assumption that they were lawfully married. (Galloway vs Galloway).
How mistake may be caused?
![How mistake may be caused?]()
Reviewed by Hosne
on
9:56 AM
Rating:
