Unilateral Mistake in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (Cape Providence)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 14 October 2002

    (i) there must be a common assumption as to the existence of a state of affairs; (ii) there must be no warranty by either party that that state of affairs exists; (iii) the non-existence of the state of affairs must not be attributable to the fault of either party; (iv) the non-existence of the state of affairs must render performance of the contract impossible; (v) the state of affairs may be the existence, or a vital attribute, of the consideration to be provided or circumstances which must subsist if performance of the contractual adventure is to be possible.

  • Bell v Lever Bros Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 15 December 1931

    Corresponding to mistake as to the existence of the subject matter is mistake as to title in cases where unknown to the parties the buyer is already the owner of that which the seller purports to sell to him. To such a case Lord Westbury applied the principle that if parties contract under a mutual mistake and misapprehension as to their relative and respective rights the result is that the agreement is liable to be set aside as having proceeded upon a common mistake.

  • Bates (Thomas) and Son Ltd v Wyndham's (Lingerie) Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 November 1980

    But as the alleged common intention ex hypothesis contradicts the written instrument, convincing proof is required in order to counteract the cogent evidence of the parties' intention displayed by the instrument itself.

  • Pitt and Another v Holt and Another Futter and Another v Futter and Others
    • Supreme Court
    • 09 May 2013

    I would provisionally conclude that the true requirement is simply for there to be a causative mistake of sufficient gravity; and, as additional guidance to judges in finding and evaluating the facts of any particular case, that the test will normally be satisfied only when there is a mistake either as to the legal character or nature of a transaction, or as to some matter of fact or law which is basic to the transaction.

  • Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and another
    • House of Lords
    • 01 July 2009

    What is clear from these cases is that there is not, so to speak, a limit to the amount of red ink or verbal rearrangement or correction which the court is allowed. All that is required is that it should be clear that something has gone wrong with the language and that it should be clear what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant. In my opinion, both of these requirements are satisfied.

  • Riverlate Properties Ltd v Paul
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 08 April 1974

    Whether there was in any particular case knowledge of the intention and mistake of the other party must be a question of fact to be decided upon the evidence. Basically it appears to us that it must be such as to involve the defendant in a degree of sharp practice. Basically it appears to us that it must be such as to involve the defendant in a degree of sharp practice.

  • Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 26 February 1998

    But I think it should be recognised that one is here concerned with a restitutionary remedy and that the appropriate questions are therefore, first, whether the defendant would be enriched at the plaintiff's expense; secondly, whether such enrichment would be unjust and thirdly, whether there are nevertheless reasons of policy for denying a remedy. But I think it should be recognised that one is here concerned with a restitutionary remedy and that the appropriate questions are therefore, first, whether the defendant would be enriched at the plaintiff's expense; secondly, whether such enrichment would be unjust and thirdly, whether there are nevertheless reasons of policy for denying a remedy.

See all results
Legislation
  • Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 2010
    ...... CHAPTER 1 . Double taxation arrangements and unilateral relief arrangements . Double taxation arrangements Double taxation ... . . (7) X is not bound by virtue of section 835U by mistakes in information provided by the UK representative of X in discharging, so ......
  • The Land Registration Rules 2003
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 2003
    ...... to in section 18(2) was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or undue influence or given under duress. Consent to registration of a ...Application for entry of a unilateral notice S-83 . Application for entry of a unilateral notice Application ......
  • Land Registration Act 2002
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 2002
    ......register for the purpose of— . . (a) correcting a mistake, or. . . (b) bringing the register up to date. . (2) An order under ...for— . . (a) an agreed notice, or. . . (b) a unilateral notice. . (3) The registrar may only approve an application for an ......
  • Income Tax Act 1952
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1952
    ...... Chapter III . Appeals and Relief for Mistake . S-50 . Prohibition against altering assessments except on appeal. 50 ... S-348 . Unilateral relief. 348 Unilateral relief. . (1) To the extent appearing from the ......
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • Rectifying the Course of Rectification
    • Nbr. 75-3, May 2012
    • The Modern Law Review
    In Daventry District Council v Daventry & District Housing Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1153, the majority of the Court of Appeal held that a contract should be rectified because of a common mistake. Th...
    ...... held that a contract should be rectified because of a common mistake . This note discusses that decision and recent developments in the law of ... might help to distinguish common mistake rectification from unilateral mistak e rectification. INTRODUCTION In Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon ......
  • REFLECTIONS ON SOME ASPECTS OF OPERATIVE MISTAKE IN CONTRACT
    • Nbr. 13-1, January 1950
    • The Modern Law Review
    ...... legal substance between bilateral and unilateral mistake ; SMITH v. HUGHES AND ESTOPPEL Before deciding whether a fact is a ' fundamental ' one, there is posed in all ......
  • Duty of Employers to Disclose Breaches of Contracts: BCCI v Ali and Others
    • Nbr. 6-4, February 1999
    • Journal of Financial Crime
    • 359-361
    In BCCI v Ali, the court was faced with the question whether an employer is under a duty to disclose breaches of contract where they may give rise to risks to the physical, financial and psychologi...
    ...... (that it was carrying on a corrupt and dishonest business); (b) mistake on the employees' part by signing the agreement unaware of the breach; or ...UNILATERAL MISTAKE The employees also contended that they were unaware of the ......
  • Payment By Letter Of Credit
    • Nbr. 23-6, November 1960
    • The Modern Law Review
    ...... If the mistake is discovered and corrected by notice before an acceptance ... who had ordered rescission of a contract for unilateral mistake. In October 1957 the appellant, suppliers and ......
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT