13. Non-agreement mistake

R. Merkin, Séverine Saintier
{"title":"13. Non-agreement mistake","authors":"R. Merkin, Séverine Saintier","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198816980.003.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter focuses on the legal treatment of mistakes that are presumed to nullify consent if both parties entered into the contract under the same fundamental mistake, assuming the absence of a provision of the contract allocating the risk of this initial impossibility. The doctrine of common mistake in English law is designed to protect the interests of third parties and to ensure certainty in transactions. A fundamental common mistake arises in cases where there is true impossibility or failure of consideration. Under these circumstances, the contract is automatically void and any money or property involved has to be returned. Fine distinctions can arise in terms of the legal treatment of impossibility depending upon whether the impossibility is initial (common mistake) or subsequent (frustration doctrine). Categories of common mistake at common law include mistake as to subject matter (res extincta) and mistake as to ownership (res sua). A mistake as to quality will very rarely be sufficiently fundamental to render the contract void since impossibility of the contractual adventure is required. This chapter also discusses Lord Denning’s attempts to introduce an equitable jurisdiction to set aside on terms in cases of mistakes as to quality which were rejected in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd and the fact that this means there is no remedial flexibility in such instances.","PeriodicalId":179935,"journal":{"name":"Poole's Textbook on Contract Law","volume":"480 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Poole's Textbook on Contract Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198816980.003.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter focuses on the legal treatment of mistakes that are presumed to nullify consent if both parties entered into the contract under the same fundamental mistake, assuming the absence of a provision of the contract allocating the risk of this initial impossibility. The doctrine of common mistake in English law is designed to protect the interests of third parties and to ensure certainty in transactions. A fundamental common mistake arises in cases where there is true impossibility or failure of consideration. Under these circumstances, the contract is automatically void and any money or property involved has to be returned. Fine distinctions can arise in terms of the legal treatment of impossibility depending upon whether the impossibility is initial (common mistake) or subsequent (frustration doctrine). Categories of common mistake at common law include mistake as to subject matter (res extincta) and mistake as to ownership (res sua). A mistake as to quality will very rarely be sufficiently fundamental to render the contract void since impossibility of the contractual adventure is required. This chapter also discusses Lord Denning’s attempts to introduce an equitable jurisdiction to set aside on terms in cases of mistakes as to quality which were rejected in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd and the fact that this means there is no remedial flexibility in such instances.
13. Non-agreement错误
课程集中和全面,系列教科书提供了法律课程关键领域的可访问概述。本章的重点是,如果双方在相同的基本错误下签订合同,假设合同中没有分配这种最初不可能的风险的条款,则推定错误会使同意无效。英国法律中的共同错误原则旨在保护第三方的利益并确保交易的确定性。在真正不可能或未能考虑的情况下,会出现一个基本的常见错误。在这种情况下,合同自动失效,所涉及的任何金钱或财产都必须退还。根据不可能性是初始的(常见错误)还是后续的(挫折原则),在法律处理不可能性方面可以产生细微的区别。普通法上常见的错误包括标的物上的错误(已消灭)和所有权上的错误(已消灭)。质量方面的错误很少足以导致合同无效,因为合同风险是不可能的。本章还讨论了Lord Denning在Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd中被拒绝的质量错误案件中引入公平管辖权的尝试,以及这意味着在这种情况下没有补救灵活性的事实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信