• Unilateral mistake where only one party is mistaken. Common Mistake The parties appear to be in a agreement but have entered into the contract under the same misapprehension. Such mistakes are fundamental to the contract. For a common mistake to be operative the mistake must go to the root of the contract .The fundamental purpose of the agreement between the parties. Common Mistake When there is a misunderstanding between the parties to each others intentions , that they are said to be at cross-purposes.
According to MA 1967 s. 2 (1) a person who has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made, then “if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently” that person will be liable “notwithstand that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, 45 unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true”. Since the burden of proof is reversed in MA 1967 s. 2 (1), a misrepresented is more likely to base his claim on this section rather than the common law
In tort, the interaction is never in view of consent. Tort are generally include an interruption by one party into the profit, safety, protection of the victim or the health. Indeed, it can treat as defence that will keep them from recovering damages if the victim agrees to the tortious conduct. In the contract, the parties must go into an agreement wittingly and without being pressured. Each of the party must agree to the result of an agreement as expressed in the document to make the contract become valid.
2- Mistake of fact. First, mistake of law; after a person enters into a contract and he or she don’t have information of the law in the state or place where agreement make, and this agreement is affected by mistakes but it is not void. So that leads us to know that ignorance of law is not an justification. if a party is induced to enter into a contract by the’ mistake of law’ so a contract is not valid. According to Paul Latimer book:” A person who makes a payment under a mistake of law may be able to recover that payment by restitution”.
Innocent misrepresentation is a misrepresentation made by someone where a person got reasonable grounds for making someone to believe that his false statement is right.According to Hedley Barney all misrepresenatation which are not considered to be fraudulent will be considered as innocent misrepresentation. When someone had commited innocent misrepresentation,certain remedies are available for them. Commonly rescission is used for all the type of misrepresentation including for innocent misrepresentation.Rescission means the court willl go back to the original act,where they will act as in the contract had never exist before. As for in rescision, court will normally refer to section 2 (2) Misrepresentation Act 1967 for rescission. Rescission
First, the knowledge of the situation is in the ordinary course of things which mean imputed to the parties whether or not they knew about it. Second, the actual knowledge of special circumstances outside ordinary course of things but was communicated to the defendant or otherwise known by the parties. We can look into the case of Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc where it is clear that this test is about identifying the scope of an implied assumption of responsibility by the defendant in the contract. It requires an assessment of the common expectation of the defendant 's liability. On the other hand, in tort and negligence matter, once a breach in the duty of care had been established, a defendant was liable for all the consequent damage no matter how unusual or unpredictable that damage might be.
·Sometimes people excuse the damage they cause by saying this was a mistake or that they did not mean to cause the damage. Is this a valid excuse to avoid liability for damage caused? Explain your answer. With the above question about people that is liable to a damages due to their civil wrong and now finding an excuse to avoid damages. In law, there is no excuse and the defaulter would therefore be liable for their offence committed except if the judge in a court of law based of their reasonable doubt found that it was not proven true that such person would be liable for a damages.
It is illegal method of contracting as the falsification statement influence the decision of another party (van Erp, 2013). Common law does not permit that kind of practices. Party that suffers from the misrepresentation can rescind the contract or may claim damages. There are many ways to misrepresent the fact of contract (Stone & Stone, 2011). To establish misrepresentation under the act one need to keep in mind following limitations.
That is, would a reasonable shipping company foresee the personal loss and harm? In this case, the harm and loss is foreseeable and not too remote. Thus, the breach of duty will cause (B)’s harm and loss. Besides, there are no defenses available to the company. Based on the decision in Hopkins v Tanqueray , the conditions printed on the ticket is likely to be representations.