lOMoARcPSD|8281576

Mistake

Contract law (University of London)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Zohora Nur (nurzohora@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|8281576

Online Class 4

PLEASE READ THIS QUESTION CAREFULLY

Q) Suggs visits Marlow in response

to an advertisement placed by Marlow about the sale of his grand piano for £15,000. Suggs is
posing as Felix, a wellknown YouTube star; the resemblance is remarkable. Suggs offers Marlow
£10,000 for the piano. Despite the reduced price, Marlow wishes to accept the offer because he

Suggs presents a
thinks that it would be exciting to sell to such a star.

cheque for £10,000. He has stolen this

from Felix and fraudulently signed it in
Felix’s name. In an attempt to falsely prove his identity to Marlow,
Suggs shows him a short YouTube video on his smartphone featuring Felix. Marlow accepts
Suggs’ offer and allows Suggs to take the piano away in his van. Suggs immediately takes the
piano to Arias, a dealer, and sells it to them. A few days later, Marlow is contacted by his bank
and informed that the cheque is worthless.

Para 1: Suggs (rogue) --- Marlow --- sold it to arias (piano)

Marlow (guitar) ======== Shop

Downloaded by Zohora Nur (nurzohora@gmail.com)

We understand from the facts that Marlow has mistakenly sold the piano to Snuggs thinking that
he is a famous youtube star Felix and the rogue Snuggs has sold the paino to the innocent party
Arias and we need to determine whether the piano will be kept by A or will be returned to M. In
addition, we further understand that M has also purchased a guitar for 30 pounds which was
owned previously by a famous singer but the shop keeper had mistakenly put the price wrong
and is refusing to deliver the guitar. We need to determine whether this guitar has to be given at
30 pounds or the contract will be void. We shall discuss each aspect separately.
Contract of the Piano
In respect of the contract for the piano, we note that M was mistaken regarding Snugg’s identity
as he though he was Felix. Therefore he can rely on the law of mistake to hold the contract void.
However, the first issue is to determine whether the operating mistake was unilateral or bilateral
(copy paste). In our case, only M mistaken wheras S clealy knew that he was not F therefore it is
a unilateral mistake and it is evident from the facts that the mistake is not in respect of the terms
but rather identity of the person. As it is a mistake of identify, we need to determine whether the
inter absentis yes iprinciple will apply or inter presentis principle in respect of contract formation
and passing of title. [copy paste from notes].
In our case, the contract formed was clearly face to face and therefore the contract will not be
with the real Felix but rather with the rogue S who was physically present and the title and the
piano will both pass to S and he can and has passed it to the innocent third party A and therefore
the contract will not be void and A will keep the piano.

Contract for Guitar

Unilateral or
Bilateral
In respect of the contract for the guitar, we first need to determine whetehr the operating mistake
is unilateral or bilateral (define above). In our case, we understand that the shop keeper had
clearly made a mistake in respect of the pricing of the guitar. However, we see no evidence that
M was also suffering from a mistake. As he just saw a guitar for 30 pounds and he bought it.
Hence, the operating mistake was only on part of the shop keeper and therefore it is a unilateral
mistake.
As it is a unilateral mistake, it is evident from the facts that it relates to the price which is a term
of the contract. Therefore, in order to determine whether the contract will be valid or void,
reliance can be placed on the cases of Smith v Hughes and Hartog v Collin Shields where a

contract for unilateral mistake of terms is only void if the non mistaken
(Marlow) party KNEW or
REASONABLE OUGHT TO
KNOW of the mistake but failed to point it
out. Whilst we concede that M never subjectively knew
about the mistake of the shop keeper or his assistant, we
would like to rely on the fact that he OUGHT to know of the
mistake as it would be an obivious mistake that a guitar from
a famous singer cannot be priced so low as the price on it
was ONLY 30 pounds. Our analysis however is based on the
assumption that Brian Carferry who owned this guitar was very famous and the
market price of his guitar would be substantially higher than [30 pounds – 1000 pounds].
On that basis, the contract will be held void as he failed to point it out and acceped the
contract.

Depressed by this news, Marlow goes out to cheer himself up. He sees a sign in the
window of his favourite music shop offering for sale a guitar that was owned by Brian
Carferry, a famous singer and songwriter. The price is advertised at £30. Marlow rushes
in and buys the guitar, arranging for it to be delivered to him the next day. However, the
shop later refuses to deliver the guitar, telling Marlow that their new sales assistant
mistakenly put the wrong price tag on the guitar. Advise Marlow.

AQ (3000 rupees debt)-----------V (pay 3000 rupees)

[Part payment of debt never suffices to full payment] – tomorrow I can sue you and you
have back – unless [ou give me extra consideration with the part payment] – [any 1000
ruppes – object] = full payment or [1000 ruppess earlier payment = full payment

10 crores

[1 rupees – pen] –
The act of the D was the factual and legal cuase of harm.