Lecture Notes: Vitiating Factors in Contract Law

Unilateral Mistake

• Focus: Continuation of discussion on unilateral mistake, specifically the identity of the contracting party.
• Key Consideration: Establish if the transaction was face-to-face or concluded in writing.

Mistake as to Identity

• Establishing Mistake:
  • Ensure the transaction type is identified: face-to-face or in writing.
  • Importance of determining if the transaction is void or voidable.

Contracts Concluded in Writing

• Key Source: "The Law of Contract in Ghana" by Christian D. Hamm.
  • Key Point: The party alleging mistake must show they had in mind a definite identifiable person other than the person who accepted the offer.

Case Studies

Cundy v. Lindsay

• Scenario: A rogue ordered goods under a false name, similar to a reputable firm.
• Court Decision: The contract was void because the sellers had in mind a definite and identifiable company.
• Principle: If a specific person or entity in mind exists, the contract with the rogue is void.

King's Norton Metal Co. Ltd v. Edridge Merrett & Co. Ltd

• Scenario: Rogue ordered goods using a nonexistent company's name.
• Court Decision: Contract was voidable, not void, as there was no definite identifiable entity.
• Result: Third party acquired good title because the transaction was voidable.

Key Principles

• Definite and Identifiable Person: Essential to prove unilateral mistake in writing.
• Void vs. Voidable:
  • Void: No valid contract; goods can be recovered from third parties.
  • Voidable: Contract exists until rescinded; title may pass to third parties.

Conclusion

• Understanding Unilateral Mistake: Differentiating between written and face-to-face transactions is crucial.
• Next Lecture: Focus on face-to-face transactions and establishing identity mistakes.