正在編輯用戶:Hinnia/Mistake （章節）

== Unilateral Mistake ==

=== Mistake as to the Promise ===

* Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
** Facts: Hughes thought Smith's oats were old. Smith knew Hughes thought this, but had not said they were old.
** Issue: Was the contract void because of Hughes’ mistake?
** Holding: Contract was binding.
** Principle: Distinction between:
*** Mistake as to a term you hope for (buyer hopes oats are old) -> No relief
*** Mistake as to a term actually offered (seller promises oats are old) -> May be relief.
** Mere knowledge of the other's subjective mistake is not enough to avoid the contract.
* Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
** Facts: Negitiation of hare skins
*** Seller offered goods at a price "per pound" by mistake
**** Trade custom was "per piece"
*** Buyer tried to accept.
** Holding: No contract.
** Principle: The buyer must have realised the offer contained a mistake.
*** A party cannot “snap up” an offer which they know was not intended.
*** The objective interpretation is tempered where one party knows the other is mistaken as to a term.

=== Mistake as to Identity ===
Distinction between written/distance contracts and face-to-face contracts.

Face to face: Law presumes a person intends to contract with the person physically in front of them. 

Contract is voidable for fraud, not void for mistake (protects innocent third parties).

Written/Documented Contracts: Where identity is crucial and reduced to writing, extrinsic evidence is not generally admissible to contradict the document. Mistake can render the contract void.

* Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App. Cas. 459
** Facts: A rogue, Blenkarn, wrote from 37 Wood St, signing his name to resemble “Blenkiron & Co”
*** Reputable firm at 123 Wood St. Lindsay
*** Sent goods on credit to “Messrs Blenkiron & Co., 37 Wood St”.
** Issue: Was there a contract between Lindsay and the rogue Blenkarn?
** Held: No. The contract was void for mistake.
** Reasoning: Through written correspondence
*** Lindsay intended to deal exclusively with the entity Blenkiron & Co. 
*** No consensus ad idem with Blenkarn.
*** Rogue obtained no title, so could pass none to an innocent third party (Cundy).

* King's Norton Metal Co. v Eldridge (1897) 14 T.L.R. 98
** Facts: A rogue, Wallis, used the entirely fictitious name “Hallam & Co” in written correspondence.
*** The plaintiffs sent goods to “Hallam & Co”.
** Held: Contract was voidable for fraud, not void.
** Reasoning: The plaintiffs intended to deal with the writer of the letters.
*** There was only one entity (the rogue), albeit under an alias. Identity was not crucial.

* Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 K.B. 243
** Facts: A rogue in a jeweller’s shop claimed to be Sir George Bullough.
** The jeweller checked a directory for the address and let him take a ring on credit.
** Issue: Was the contract void for mistake?
** Held: No. The contract was voidable for fraud.
** Reasoning: The presumption applied. The jeweller intended to deal with the person in the shop.
*** Identity was not of vital importance compared to creditworthiness.

* Ingram v Little [1961] 1 Q.B. 31
** Facts: A rogue claiming to be “Mr Hutchinson” bought a car from two sisters.
*** Checked a phone directory for his name and address before accepting his cheque.
** Issue: Was the contract void?
** Held: Yes. Contract void.
** Reasoning: The detailed verification steps rebutted the presumption
*** Showing the sisters intended to deal only with the genuine Mr Hutchinson, not the person present.

* Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 (The Modern Authority)
** Facts: Rogue went to a dealer to buy a Mitsubishi Shogun on hire purchase
*** Used a stolen driving licence to complete a hire-purchase agreement in the name of Mr. Patel. 
*** Shogun Finance authorised the hire purchase agreement and the rogue drove away.
*** Rogue then sold the car to Mr Hudson
** Issue: Was the hire-purchase agreement with the rogue void (so Hudson gets no title)
*** Or voidable (so Hudson, an innocent private purchaser, is protected by statute)?
*** Mr Hudson relied on section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964
*** Statutory exception to the common law principle that "nemo dat quod non habet"
**** (nobody can pass better title than he has)
*** Non-trade buyer of a car who buys in good faith from a hirer under a hire purchase agreement becomes the owner.
** Held: VOID.
*** No contract of hire purchase
*** Car was not Mr Hudson's.
** Reasoning:
*** Followed the principle established in Cundy v Lindsay
*** A contract where identity is of key importance is void if the purchaser lies about their identity.
*** Face-to-face exemption established by Phillips v Brooks Ltd did not apply
*** Seller was not the dealer but the finance company.
** Exam Gold: This case cements the distinction. 
*** For exam problems, first ask:
**** Is the contract written/formalised with a specific identity
**** Or is it face-to-face/oral? Apply the presumption for face-to-face dealings.