If a party was induced to mistaken enter into a contract, such mistake will affect the consent thereby nullifying the contract, because if not for the inducement, the consent would not have been freely given. WALES v. WADHAM (1977) 2 All ER 125
If a party was induced to mistaken enter into a contract, such mistake will affect the consent thereby nullifying the contract, because if not for the inducement, the consent would not have been freely given. WALES v. WADHAM (1977) 2 All ER 125
A unilateral mistake occurs where one of the parties enter into a contract under mistake and the other party is aware of the mistake or is presumed under law to know that the other party is acting or entering into the contract under mistake. The party alleging the mistake must be subjected to a subjective test by considering his actual intendment in relation to the contract.
For the nullification of a contract that was made with mistaken identity, the following must exist: (i) there must have been a clear intention to deal with someone else – the person with whom the contract is intended to be entered with must be clearly stated as part of the terms of the contract, be it written or oral; (ii) the intention to deal with someone else must have been known to the other party – accepting an offer that was clearly intended for another person voids the contract ab initio; (iii) the importance of the identity of the other party – the identity of the party that the mistaken party had wished to enter the contract with must be crucial for the purposes of alleging mistake; (iv) mode of expressing the importance of the identity of the other party immaterial. LEWIS v. AVERAY (1971) 3 All ER 907; BOULTON v. JONES (1857) 2 H & N 564; INGRAM v. LITTLE (1960) 3 All ER 332.
No. The mistake must have occurred during the time the contract is being entered into or in the concluding stage, before it can translate to what will nullify the contract. AMALGAMATED INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY CO. LTD. v. JOHN WALKER AND SONS LTD.
Where a party perceives or suspects the existence of a mistake and he decides to voluntarily enter into the contract, he cannot plead mistake as a factor for the contract to be nullified. LIVESEY v. JENKINS (1985) All ER 106.
The effect of such a contract is that it shall be void because the later transfer has no basis as there has been an earlier transfer delivering the title to the transferee, and the intended seller of the latter transfer has nothing to transfer. COOPER v. PHIBBS (1867) LR 2 HL 149.
Mistake as to quality does not outrightly affect the validity of a contract that will lead to voiding the contract but where the quality was specifically described in the terms of the contract, if it is breached, such mistake as to the quality can lead to voiding it. HARRISON & JONES LTD. v. BUNTEN & LANCASTER LTD. (1953) 1 All ER 903.
Where parties to a contract agreed upon the existence of a thing as the subject matter of their contract and it turned out that the subject matter is non-existent or that it has ceased to exist, such contract shall be nullified and declared void. SCOTT v. COULSON (1903) 2 Ch. 249
A party entered into a contract with a genuine intention by mistake and the other party is aware of the said mistake, the contract emanating from such genuine mistake will be rendered void. CENTROVINCIAL ESTATE PLC. v. MERCHANT INVESTORS ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (1983) Com. LR.
When there is no genuine consent to create legal relation from one of the party as expressed during as regarding a particular terms of a contract and the other party goes ahead to believe that there was a contract on that term, then, such contract can be nullified on the basis of mistake. For mistake to affect a contract, it must be substantial with extreme gravity. BELL & ANOR. v. LEVER BROS. LTD.
The court in determining whether a mistake occurred in a contract so as to nullify it, the court must adopt the objective test. It is not what the parties present as to what the agreed upon that will determine whether mistake occurred or not, rather, it is what a reasonable person would have done in such circumstance that will be the primordial consideration. SMITH v. HUGHES (1861-73) All ER Rep. 632, 637.
Where one of the party to a contract is aware that the other party is entering into the contract with him was under a mistake, the objective test will apply to him even though he did not induce the mistake by himself. That is, the reasonable man’s test. ALHAJI A. W. A. YUSSUF v. N.T.C LTD. (1975) 1 NMLR 315.
A contact cannot be rendered invalid simply because the identity of one of the party is different from the person the other party envisaged.