MISTAKE

Topic of the day

- The concept of mistake

- Categories of mistake

- The defences to the tort of mistake

THE CONCEPT OF MISTAKE

The concept of mistake in legal terms refers to situations where parties enter into a contract or agreement under a misunderstanding or erroneous belief about a material fact.

CATEGORIES OF MISTAKE

Mistakes can be classified into three main categories: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, and mistake by misrepresentation. 

1. Unilateral Mistake: This occurs when only one party to a contract is mistaken about a material fact, but the other party is aware of the mistake or has no reason to know about it. In such cases, the mistaken party may not be able to void the contract unless certain conditions are met, such as the mistake being so significant that enforcing the contract would be unconscionable.

2. Mutual Mistake: Mutual mistake happens when both parties to a contract are mistaken about the same material fact. If the mistake is fundamental to the contract and goes to the root of the agreement, the contract may be voidable by either party.

3. Mistake by Misrepresentation: This occurs when one party makes a false statement that induces the other party to enter into the contract. If the misrepresentation is material and the misled party reasonably relies on it, they may have grounds to void the contract or seek damages.

THE DEFENCES OF THE TORT OF MISTAKE

The defenses to the tort of mistake aim to mitigate liability in situations where a mistake leads to harm. These defenses include:

1. Contributory Negligence: This defense asserts that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm suffered. See the case of Davies v. Mann (1842) where the plaintiff left his donkey unattended on the highway, contributing to its accident. 

2. Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Consent): This defense argues that the plaintiff knowingly and willingly exposed themselves to the risk of harm. See the case of Smith v. Charles Baker & Sons (1891) where the plaintiff, aware of the risk, rode in an overloaded elevator and was injured when it fell.

3. Mistake of Law: Generally, ignorance of the law is not a defense. However, in the case of Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895), it was held that if the defendant's mistake was reasonable and not due to negligence, it could be a defense.

4. Mistake of Fact: see the case of Scott v. Shepherd (1773) where the court held that if a person's act leads to harm resulting from a mistake, but the mistake was not due to negligence, the defendant may not be liable.