Definition of mistake in a contract:
In second part of 19th century the idea of mistake came into law. So all people start to know about it. Even with best of intentions, Mistake can happen. However there are many meaning of mistake in a contract.
Mistake, a contract may be held void where the contracting parties have contracted built upon some form. When parties enter into a contact and they do something incorrect, in this way we can define mistake in a contract. On other hand we can say: is a wrong thinking, when a person enters into contract and he believes that thing is correct.
Categories of mistake:
The mistake in a contract is an important part of contract and it can cause many things in contract. Common law has identified three categories
…show more content…
But a person who signs document under a fundamental mistake as to its nature may have it a voided. For example, A, who was senile, was persuaded to sign a bill of exchange under the misapprehension that it was an assurance. It was held that the bill was void for mistake: Foster v Mackinnon (1869).
Mistake in equity: “The rules of equity prevail over the rules of the common law, where they conflict, and certain equitable principles have been established to mitigate some of the harsher aspects of the common law”.
Accordingly, equity will thus intervene for many purposes:
I. Amend, a written instrument containing patent errors of expression.
II. To refuse to order specific performance of a contract against a defendant who is laboring under a mistake such that it would be grossly unjust to comple him to perform his contract.
III. To set aside an agreement on terms fair to all parties, where common law will not declare it void.
• The sale of a house was held voidable on ground of common mistake as to value, which was not sufficient to render the contract void at law: Grist v Bailey (1966).
Remedies for mistake:
For a mistake in common law, there are many
2. Whether the lower court’s decision to nullify the Bill of Sale could be reversed, under the principle of in pari delicto potior est condition defendentis et possidentis. Holding 1. The court affirmed the lower court’s ruling to nullify the Bill of Sale on the grounds of undue influence and misrepresentation, not on Tally’s mental state. 2.
The criminal just system failed Marlina Medrano in so many ways. When Medrano contacted the police about be assaulted by Thomas Hartless and he left with a handgun, in my opinion an arrest warrant should have been put out for him due to the facts that (1) he threatened to kill her (2) it wasn’t the first time he threatened her, and (3) he left with a handgun which was a felony due to his prior felony conviction. My thoughts are the criminal justice system failed to protect Medrano as the police knew of all of this and didn’t issue a warrant until 11 days later. When Hartless went to court for this, he pleaded not guilty and was released on his own recognizance.
In Roper v. Simmons there are two issues that must be addressed, the first being the issue of moral maturity and culpability. The defense in the trial phase of this case argued that Mr. Simmons was an at an age where he was not responsible enough to fully understand the effects and consequences of his actions. The majority draws on Atkins v. Virginia to argue that this specific precedent supports their case that the death penalty should not be imposed on the mentally immature or impaired. However, an important point to be made is that the Atkins v. Virginia decision is geared towards the clinical definition of mental retardation: significant limitations that limit adaptive skills. Also, another important question to consider is the competency and premeditation of Mr. Simmons’ crime in this case.
In discussions of the Bystander Law, one controversial issue with bystanders in our society today is if one person doesn 't react and there is two other people with them, the other two won 't react. For people who don’t know the definition of a bystander, it means a person who is present at an event or incident but doesn’t respond. Why follow someone else when you can be an individual? People who believe that we as individuals shouldn’t have the law, but the reason that people wouldn’t follow the law if we enforce it. On the other hand, those who believe that our own selves should have the law contend that there should be consequences.
This Parol evidence rule, which has been considered as a common law rule, prevent the parties to the written contract from providing any additional extrinsic evidence, which reveals an ambiguity and refines it, in addition to the terms prescribed in the written contract which appears as complete. The supporting justification to this rule is that since the parties to the contract have signed a final written contract, the extrinsic evidence of the terms and agreements held before should not be taken into consideration while construing the contract, as the contracting parties had already excluded them from the contract. In simple words, one may follow this common law rule to avoid any contradiction with the written contract.
For instance, a simple mistake
The first error is the error of confusing cause and consequence. " The most general formula at the basis of every religion and morality is: do this and this, refrain from this and this and you will be happy! … a well-constituted human being, a happy one, must perform certain actions." (Nietzsche, 227).
THE PHILOSOPHY OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE SYSTEM Ashish Kumar Distributive Justice or Economic Justice or the Fair Share principle, as the name suggests, is basically concerned with the social and economic welfare of the citizens. It says that an equal society is that where there is a fair allocation of the material goods and services between all the sections of the society. John Rawls, the main theorist of Distributive Justice gives two basic principles of Fairness or Fair Share related to Distributive Justice. The Constitution of India, through Article 14, 15, 16, 38, 39, 39(A) enforces the principle of distributive justice. Distributive justice exists in a society where there exists no inequality, so the Indian constitution through these articles tries to remove the prevailing inequalities in the society.
So making a bad decision is never fun. I’d like to think that most of us prefer not to make them but can’t help to sometimes because we think a bad decision isn’t that bad. It might even be a good one in the right mind set. The point of this paper being to reflect on a pass choice looking at it with the elements of critical thinking. My bad decision is one I think most are guilty of, waiting until the last minute on something important.
[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law
Are we obligated to obey unjust laws? Laws are important because they are guidelines for a state. Without laws citizens would not know how to act and cause harm to others. Laws are aimed at common good and keep a society together and functioning.
Natural law theory states that there are laws that are immanent in nature and the man made laws should correspond as closely as possible. Man can’t produce natural laws but he can find and discover through his reasoning. If a law is contrary to a natural law then it is not a law. Laws should be related to morality. It is a concept of a body of moral principal that is same for all the man
Human is born with the natural ability of reasoning whether or not it is a gracious gift from God as claimed. According to natural law, human is capable of deciding whether an action is morally right or wrong. We do not create what is evil and good, rather, we discover what is right or wrong. Besides, humans are morally obliged to use their reasoning capability to discern what the laws are and subsequently acting in conformity with them. Therefore, there is no reason why divine law must be superior than man-made law when human is just as effective and arguably, even more effective.
These mistakes are realized only when you go through the same situation as you made them go through. This is necessary to happen as this is when you actually realize your mistake and you know that you will never repeat the same mistake again, as you have also felt the same pain and know the exact consequences of the mistake. Another example of a mistake that hugely affected the people was of the great depression which took place in America. The outcome of living happy go lucky and purchasing things with no cash brought about a sudden fiasco.
Material Sources: Material sources of law includes: • Historical Sources: Suppose no statutes exist, then court refers to common law or case law. The principles or set of rules framed traditionally in an unauthorized or in an unofficial way, but are adopted and endorsed as rules, and decisions are made on them as well. Such sources are outlined as COMMON LAW OF EQUITY. The essential characteristic of common law is that it ascends as precedent. When the parties have disagreement on the law, then court looks for previous rulings and precedents on it.