Chapter Five: Written Documents 1 Unsigned Documents 1
Mistake About Contractual Terms
Download 420.81 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Raffles v Wichelhaus (IC)
- Seaiman Steel Ltd. v Commercial Home Buildings
- What is this about
4. Mistake About Contractual TermsHobbs v Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Company(IC)What is this aboutFacts: K for sale of land, railway (D) wants to keep mineral rights and claims “land” for purposes of K does not include these rights; Hobbs (P) sues for specific performance of sale including mineral rights. Issue: What is the ordinary meaning of “land”? Held: for the P; K was for “land” and a reasonable person would have thought mineral rights were included (objective test). Private/subjective meaning (i.e. within D’s office) has no relevance to the court. Ratio: Mistake by one party will not suffice to invalidate a K where literal meaning of K is clear. Raffles v Wichelhaus (IC)What is this aboutFacts: P agrees to sell D cotton from Bombay, D thought it was arriving by another ship with same name, leaving at a different time (one in October, the other in December), D refuses to pay (probably motivated by price fluctuations) Issue: Did existence of 2 ships from Bombay called “Peerless” go to the root of the K, thus invalidating it? Held: No K between the parties/not enforceable – at the moment it appears that 2 ships called “Peerless” were about to sail from Bombay = latent ambiguity, and parol evidence may be given for the purpose of showing that the D meant one “Peerless” and P meant another, resulting in no meeting of the minds Reasons: Where there is a mistake about an important term of the contract and there is no way to prefer one party’s interpretation over the other, then there is no contract b/c the offer and acceptance don’t match (no meeting of the minds) Seaiman Steel Ltd. v Commercial & Home BuildingsWhat is this aboutFacts: D is selling used steel at auction; auctioneer says they’re offering “all the steel in the yard”; P is highest bidder; when comes to pick it up wants to include brand new steel that was sitting in the corner of the yard that had already been sold; D says no dice, that wasn’t included; P agrees to take lot without new building steel but indicates it may bring a legal action; D said sign waiver to indicate building steel wasn’t included; P refuses and then D refuses to deliver ANY of the steel (old or new) Issue: (1) Was the building steel included in the offer for sale of “all the steel in the yard” (2) Does the misunderstanding about what was for sale constitute no meeting of the minds? Held: damages for P on basis that D breached by not delivering any steel; but only gets damages for steel D intended to sell: (1) NO – D never intended to include new building steel in offer; Everyone knew that all the steel in the yard didn’t mean literally ALL the steel in the yard. Just meant the steel that had been offered for sale separately in catalogue being sold as a single item for sale (building steel was separately piled, not tagged and not listed in catalogue); (2) NO - basic rule of K law that it is not a party's actual intention that determines contractual relationship, but rather the intention manifested by the words and actions of the parties; Court infers a mutual mistake = court must decide what a reasonable 3rd party would infer the K to be from the words and conduct of the parties who entered into it…here R3P would infer auctioneer, despite his words, was an offer for sale that did NOT include the building steel Henkel v Pape(IC)What is this aboutFacts: P & D go back and forth about sale of guns, D suggests may be an order of 50 at some point; Telegram is sent stating “send…the Snider rifles”; P sends 50 but D only wanted 3; clerk who sent telegraph screwed up and put “THE” instead of “THREE” which D had written down. Issue: Did D enter a K for purchase of fifty rifles or does the error of telegraph clerk prevent this? Held: No K for 50 rifles: post-office authorities are only agents to transmit messages as they are delivered – here D delivered message as “THREE” not “THE”; D can’t be held liable b/c telegraph clerk made an error Smith v Hughes (IC)What is this aboutFacts: P sold oats to D; D thought he was buying “old” oats but they were actually “new” oats; P gave D a sample of oats before K of sale entered into; contract dispute over delivered product D insisted P take oats back; Issue: If the word 'old' not used (decided it wasn’t), did the P (vendor) believe that D believed, or was under the impression, that he was contracting for the purchase of old oats? Held: order for new trial, need more facts Reasons: Applies the caveat emptor rule (“buyer beware”) as there was no warranty in K. D cannot rely on the P to take into account his mistaken belief unless mislead by a misrepresentation.
Note: This case bridges gap between mistake as to terms and mistake as to assumptions, same mistake can sometimes be characterized as both, depending on the facts. Directory: outlines outlines -> Chabot College Fall 2010 Course Outline for Computer Application Systems 60 business software applications/general accounting outlines -> Adil Khan Contracts Midterm outline- waldron outlines -> Remedies for breach of promise (1) The Interests Protected outlines -> Basic Process for Assessing Damages: 97 Select interest that deserves vindication 97 a. Restitution 97 outlines -> Cases and Materials on Contracts outlines -> College of Science and Health outlines -> Evidence outline outlines -> 2. Act, Omission, Status or Circumstances 4 Consequences and Causation 8 Introduction to Mens Rea and Intent 10 Levels of Fault 11 outlines -> Course Outline as/huma 2650 0A Download 420.81 Kb. Share with your friends:
|