Lindsay v Cundy

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
Date1875
Year1875

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
35 cases
  • Gallie v Lee
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 25 February 1969
    ...conveyed to John in the belief that it is being assured to William". The cases cited for that proposition are the contract cases such as Cundy v. Lindsay. (1878 3 A.C. p. 459), when a mistake as to the identity of the other contracting party has been said to make the contract void ab initio......
  • Citibank N.A. v Brown Shipley & Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • Invalid date
  • Tribune Investment Trust Inc. v Soosan Trading Company Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 7 July 2000
    ...credible of belief: at [50].] British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori [1949] Ch 556; [1949] 1 All ER 208 (refd) Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 (folld) Emerald Construction Co Ltd v Lowthian [1966] 1 WLR 691; [1966] 1 All ER 1013 (distd) J T Stratford & Son Ltd v Lindley [1965] AC ......
  • Commonwealth Homes and Investment Company Ltd v Smith
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 December 2003
    ...in question as one by correspondence. They then proceeded to hold, applying the previous decision of the House in Cundy v Lindsay(1878) 3 App Cas 459, that there had been an instance of mistaken identity. Constraints of space preclude a detailed consideration of this very important case — w......
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — THE INTERACTION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1998, December 1998
    • 1 December 1998
    ...1994) at 542. 37 The oft-cited case in the former situation is that of the House of Lords in James Cundy & T Bevington v Thomas Lindsay(1878) 3 App Cas 459. 38 See also the main text accompanying notes 21—22 and 27, supra (with regard to the doctrine of common mistake). 39 [1991] 2 All ER 6......
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...“Offer and Acceptance”), however, the court, applying the principle in the leading English House of Lords decision of Cundy v Lindsay(1878) 3 App Cas 459, held that there had been no contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants and that whilst there might have been an intention on the......
  • VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — SOME KEY CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENTS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...2 KB 243; Ingram v Little[1961] 1 QB 31; and Lewis v Averay[1972] 1 QB 198, which are, inter alia, discussed in Phang, supra n 1. 49 (1878) 3 App Cas 459. 50 And see supra n 43, at [49]. 51 Supra n 48. 52 See Phang, Lee & Koh, supra n 43. 53 See ibid at 26. 54 Ibid. 55 See its Twelfth Repor......
  • Get Started for Free