Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Mistake as to identity
Mistake as to identity can occur due to
fraud
In the case of Cundy vs Lindsay 1878, a fraudster, who had a similar name as that of the
defendant, sent an order to the plaintiff . Plaintiff supplied the order which went to the defendant.
It was held that since there was a mistake as to identity, there was no contract between the
parties.
In cases where identity of the offeree is important to the offerer, a contract cannot arise in the
case of mistake as to identity. In the case of Said vs Butt 1920, the plaintiff got the tickets for a
show through a friend but the defendant, the manager of the theater did not allow him to enter.
It was held that since the manager did not give the ticket for the plaintiff, there was no contract
between them.
Raffles vs Witchlehaus -Parties had different ships in mind but both were named peerless. It
was held that there was no consensus ad idem and so the contract must be set aside.
Smith vs Huges - Buyer wanted to buy old oats for his horse. The seller showed him the sample
but didn't say anything about the age. The buyer kept the sample for 24 hrs and then ordered.
Later on he rejected the order saying that the oats were new. It was held that buyer had no right
to reject.
Mistake as to the nature of promise
When a deed of one character is signed under the belief that it is of another character, the
agreement is wholly void.
Sarat Chandra vs Kanailal - A gift deed was signed under the impression that it is only power
of attorney. It was held void.
Limitations
Both Parties
According to Section 20 both the parties must be under a mistake for the agreement to be void.
This is further supplanted by article 22 that an agreement is not void if only one party is under
mistake.
Erroneous Opinion
Explanation to section 20 says that an erroneous opinion regarding the subject matter does not
render an agreement void. This was reflected in the case of Smith vs Huges.
Mistake of fact and not of law
Section 2 1 says that mistake of law does not render an agreement void. Thus, the mistake must
be of a fact. A mistake of foreign law will be treated as a mistake of fact.