Mutual And Unilateral Mistake In Contract Law

McKeag, Edwin C. Mistake in Contract: A Study in Comparative Jurisprudence. New York: Columbia University Press, 1905. 132 pp. Reprinted 2003 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. LCCN 2002072856. ISBN 1-58477-276-X. Cloth. $60. * In contract law there are two types of mistake as determined by Savigny. The first, echt, represents those cases in which consent exists, but the contract is impeachable due to the determination of mistake. This work examines the second class of mistake in contract, unecht, "...in which real consent is lacking, resulting in the nullity of the contract, while the mistake is an accompanying feature" (Preface). This class of mistake is traced from Roman law to common law and modern civil law. Originally published as Volume XXIII, Number 2 in Columbia's series, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law.

English law, unlike in Europe and in the US, seldom gives relief when a party to a contract finds that she has entered the contract under a serious mistake about the subject matter or the facts. This book argues that small businesses suffer as a result, and proposes possible solutions, including adopting the proposed Common European Sales Law.

Comment on legislation and analysis of jurisprudence concerning liability in respect of mistake in writing letters of contract in commercial affairs and real estate business, with particular reference to the UK and some reference to relevant administration of justice in Australia and the USA - covers mistake in good faith, misrepresentation, misdescription, fraud, deceit, negligence, mistake in gift, pecuniary liability, etc. References.

This book provides invaluable assistance to all those facing coursework assignments or examinations in contract law. It provides the student with an easy method of identifying all the main points in a particular area, whilst teaching by illustration the skills needed to write good answers to contract questions.The questions and answers cover all the main areas dealt with in undergraduate and PGDL contract courses. This edition, which contains several completely new questions, has been fully revised to take account of recent developments. The most important of these are the House of Lords decisions in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) (2001) (undue influence) and Farley v Skinner (2001) (damages for non-pecuniary loss), and the Court of Appeal decision in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (2002) (mistake). In the area of contract formation, the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 and the European Directive on Electronic Commerce 2000 are both fully covered, and the developing area of contracting over the internet is dealt with in detail.

In this book Hugh Beale examines the case for reforming the law on mistake and non-disclosure of fact to bring English law closer to the law in much of continental Europe. There, and in common law countries like the US, a party may avoid a contract for mistake of fact on a more liberal basis, and a party who deliberately keeps silent knowing that the other party is making a mistake may be guilty of fraud. This is not necessarily the case in England and Wales. Developing a proposal for law reform, the author concedes that the English courts require a law that puts great emphasis on certainty and expects parties to look out for their own interests; but posits that this individualistic approach is not suitable for smaller businesses which are less sophisticated and which are likely to be making low value contracts, so that relative cost of taking advice will be high. He argues that the solution may not be to reform English contract law generally, but to support the development of an optional instrument on contract law, along the lines of the Common European Sales Law recently proposed by the European Commission. This measure is aimed specifically at the needs of small and medium enterprises, and contains the protective rules found in the other jurisdictions. It is aimed primarily at cross-border sales, but Member States would be given the option of adopting it for domestic transactions too. This would give small businesses the choice of using the current "hard-nosed" law or adopting the more protective optional instrument, recognizing that different parties require different things from the law governing their contract.