正在編輯用戶:Hinnia/Mistake （章節）

=== Mistake as to a Quality of the Subject Matter ===

* The mistake must make the subject matter "essentially different from the thing it was believed to be" (Lord Atkin in Bell).
* Bell v Lever Brothers, Ltd [1932] AC 161 (Leading Case)
** Facts: Lever Bros paid large sums to terminate directors' service contracts
*** Unaware the directors had committed prior breaches that would have allowed termination for free.
** Issue: Was the compensation agreement void for common mistake?
** Held: NO. The mistake related to the quality (terminability) of the service contracts, not their existence.
*** The subject matter (the service contracts) still existed.
*** The fact Lever Bros would not have contracted if they knew the truth was irrelevant.
** Principle: Sanctity of contract prevails. A bad bargain is not voidable for mistake.
** Strict Test: Mistake must render the item essentially different.
* Scott v Coulson [1903] 2 Ch 249
** Facts: Sale of a life insurance policy. Both parties believed the assured was alive. He was dead, making the policy more valuable.
** Held: Contract set aside for common mistake.
** Principle: A policy on a living life is fundamentally different from a policy payable on a death that has already occurred.
*** The subject matter of the bargain was fundamentally altered.
* Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord S.A. [1989] 1 WLR 255
** Facts: Guarantee given for lease payments on four machines. The machines did not exist.
** Held: Guarantee void for common mistake.
*** A guarantee for a lease of non-existent machines is "essentially different" from a guarantee for a lease of existing ones.
*** Also held a party cannot rely on a mistake where they had no reasonable grounds for their belief.
* Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407
** Facts: Hire of a ship (Great Peace) to escort a vessel in distress
*** Based on a mistaken belief they were 35 miles apart
*** Was actually 410 miles.
** Issue: Was the contract void for common mistake?
** Held: NO. The contract was not impossible to perform; services could still be rendered, just later.
*** The mistake was not fundamental enough.
** Principle
*** Contract must be impossible to perform due to the common mistake.
*** Impossibility must not be attributable to the fault of either party.
*** Must be no warranty (express or implied) by either party that the assumed state of affairs exists.
**** i.e. the risk of the mistake must not have been allocated by the contract.
*** Doctrine is narrow. Cases will be "few and far between".
*** Overrules the separate equitable jurisdiction for common mistake (see Part II).