IBRAHEEM ABDULRASHEED DAMILARE

20/40IA026
COMMOM LAW

BUL202 ASSIGNMENT

QUESTIONS:
1• Where two parties entered into a contract with the belief that certain facts or information are
correct but they turned out to be untrue, such a contract is void for mistake. DO YOU AGREE?
IF YES, HOW?. IF NO,WHY?

2• You are a counsel in chambers of ABC & co. Your client briefed you concerning a contract
where in, the supplier of a vehicle to your client is unable to deliver after payment of purchase
priced by your client on the ground that the vehicle was destroyed on monday during a sit at
home operation in owerri, Imo state. Before the consummation of the contract, unknown to both
parties. Write a letter expressing your professional advice and legal opinion to your client on his
rights if any in the aborted contract.

SOLUTIONS
Yes, this is true. The major reason is that, the need for a consensus ad idem (meeting of the
minds) between parties that enter into a contract is sacrosanct in the formation of any valid and
enforceable contract.
the essential characteristic of a void contract is that there is no choice of the parties whether or
not to void the contract, under the law it will automatically be voided. This differs from the
‘voidable’ position under misrepresentation. Hence, What this means is that both parties to a
contract are thinking of the same thing when they enter into a contract. Thus, when a party
enters into a contract on a mistaken assumption of some fundamental facts, the consensus ad
idem is lost
If both parties entered into a contract with the belief that certain facts or information are correct
but they turned out to be untrue, then the contract is void for mistake. It's important for both
parties to have accurate information when entering into a contract to ensure that the terms of
the contract are fair and reasonable.
Emphatically, When both parties enter into a contract, they have the impelling expectation that
the information provided is true, discreet and accurate. If it later turns out that the information is
false or incorrect, then the contract can be voided for mutual mistake. This is because the
parties did not have a meeting of the minds, and the contract terms are not what they intended.
The effects of mistake in a contract was well espoused by Lord Atkin in the case of Bell &
anor vs. Lever Brothers Ltd All ER 51. In this case, Lord Atkin stated:
“If mistake operates at all, it operates so as to negate or in some cases, nullify consent”.
In a layman understanding, any obvious misunderstanding of the contract by either party could
be categorized as a mistake. However, in the legal world this is not the case. Hence, Mistake in
the legal sense takes a different form from the original meaning of mistake in a layman's word.
As such, mistake in law of contract only applies to fundamental facts that go to the root of the
contract.
Under common law, mistakes can be categorized into three. These are;
1. Common mistake/ non agreement mistake
2. Mutual mistake.
3. Unilateral mistake.

Common mistake: This occurs when the mistake is shared by both parties, is fundamental, and
directly affects the basic definition of what the parties are contracting for. The mistake will render
the contract void if it robs it of all substance. This was affirmed in the case of Couturier vs.
Hastie

Res Extincta - Mistake as to the subject matter

The case of Strickland v Turner (1852) 7 Ex 208 confirmed that a mistake as to the subject
matter would amount to one which is fundamental to the decision to enter the agreement. In this
case, there was a contract for the annuity of a person’s life, but there was a (rather large!)
mistake, in that the person was already dead.

A clear distinction between mistake and frustration was made in The case of Amalgamated
Investment & Property Co Ltd v John Walker &Common mistake: This occurs when the mistake
is shared by both parties, is fundamental, and directly affects the basic definition of what the
parties are contracting for. The mistake will render the contract void if it robs it of all substance.
This was affirmed in the case of Couturier vs. Hastie
Res Extincta - Mistake as to the subject matter
The case of Strickland v Turner (1852) 7 Ex 208 confirmed that a mistake as to the subject
matter would amount to one which is fundamental to the decision to enter the agreement. In this
case, there was a contract for the annuity of a person’s life, but there was a (rather large!)
mistake, in that the person was already dead.

The distinction between mistake and frustration The case of Amalgamated Investment &
Property Co Ltd v John Walker & Sons Ltd.

Mutual mistake: This occurs when the parties are at cross-purposes with one another. If, from
the parties' words and conduct, only one possible interpretation of what was agreed can be
deduced, the contract will still be valid. Otherwise, it will be void. For example, in a situation in
which A agrees to sell his iphone to B. If A intended to sell his Samsung but B thought it was a
Tecno, there is a no required consensus ad idem between the parties. As a result, the contract
is void for mutual mistake.
Unilateral mistake: This occurs when one party is mistaken, and the other knows or ought to
have known of the mistake. If the mistake relates to the fundamental nature of the offer, the
contract can be voided.
In the case of Cundy vs. Lindsay the respondent was defrauded into selling goods on credit to
an impostor who was representing another person that he intended to deal with. Unfortunately,
before the vice was discovered, the impostor sold the goods to a third party. When the owner
discovered that he had been duped, he brought an action to retrieve the goods from the third
party. The court held that due to the unilateral mistake, the property in the goods had not yet
passed to the impostor, hence he could not transfer same to the third Party. Therefore, the
goods were returned to the plaintiff.
In conclusion, the contract is void of a common error as to some fundamental fact, the
agreement or consensus is nullified.

ABC & CO . CHAMBER

Bolatito Estate

21, black gold Avenue, Villa Road,

Akoka

Yaba, lagos

Dear sir,

Re: DESTRUCTION OF PURCHASED VEHICLE CLAIM.

We write on the above subject matter to give you legal advice. After receiving your letter on
14/06/23, hence we are pleased to inform you on your right and otherwise in this matter.
From the fact of the cas, it is obvious that the vehicle had been destroyed before the completion
of the contract, then the agreement is nullified. And as such, you are entitled to the purchase
money.
A breach of contract falls under the purview of Rex Extincta under Common Mistake if the
provider is unable to deliver the car as agreed. This may occur when an occurrence beyond the
parties' control prevents one or both of them from fulfilling their obligations under the contract
without either of them being at fault.
The common law notion of frustration or a clause for force majeure may be used by the supplier
instead. But for an event to qualify as frustration or force majeure, it must have been the root
cause of the incapacity to carry out the contract; it cannot just have occurred.

In legal sense,, since the subject matter of the contract, that is the Car has without the
knowledge of both parties to the contract ceased to exist (res extincta) before the contract was
made, then the contract is void on the ground of mistake.
Thus,you have the right to repudiate the contract immediately so that both parties will be
relieved of their contractual obligations and finally, recover your money from the seller.
However, if the seller fails to comply with this arrangement and agreement, then a legal action
shall be instituted against the seller.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Thanks for choosing our chamber for your legal advice.

Yours sincerely,
Ibraheem Damilare esq.