Certainly! The case of **Sheikh Bros v. Ochsner (*) AC *** is a landmark decision in contract law. It deals with the issue of a mistake concerning the physical impossibility of performance.
Key Points:
- A contract was made for the cultivation and delivery of crops.
- It was later discovered that the land could not produce the specified quantity.
- The court held that the contract was void due to a mistake regarding the physical impossibility of performance.
Would you like more details on how this case might relate to your specific situation or have any other questions?
Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *
Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *
Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *
Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *
Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *
Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *
Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *
Copper v Phins
Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *
Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *
can you relate the case of Cooper v Phibbs to mistake as to the legal impossibility of contract
Certainly! The case of **Cooper v Phibbs (*) LR * HL *** deals with the concept of a mistake as to the legal impossibility of a contract. Here are the key points:
- **Facts**: A lease of a fishery was agreed upon.
- **Mistake**: The lessee was unaware that he already had a legal entitlement to the fishery.
- **Ruling**: The contract was void due to a mutual mistake regarding the legal status of the subject matter.
Would you like more details or have any specific questions about how this might apply to your situation?
regarding mistake as to the identity of the subject matter, relate the case of Russel v Wichelhaus
Certainly! The case of **Raffles v. Wichelhaus (*)** deals with the issue of a mistake as to the identity of the subject matter. Here are the key points:
- **Facts**: A contract was made for the sale of cotton to arrive on the ship "Peerless."
- **Mistake**: There were two ships named "Peerless," leading to confusion about the delivery date.
- **Ruling**: The court held that there was no consensus ad idem (meeting of minds), and thus, the contract was void.
Would you like more details or have any specific questions about how this might apply to your situation?
Regarding a contract being mistaken as to the identity of the party, Contrast Cundy v. Lindsay (*) * AC * B with Lewis v Averay [*] * WIR *
Certainly! Here is a contrast between **Cundy v. Lindsay (*) * AC *** and **Lewis v. Averay [*] * WIR *** concerning a mistake as to the identity of the party:
**Cundy v. Lindsay (*) * AC ***
- **Facts**: A rogue, Blenkarn, impersonated a reputable firm, Blenkiron & Co., and ordered goods from Lindsay.
- **Issue**: Whether the contract was void due to the mistake in the identity of the party.
- **Ruling**: The court held that the contract was void because Lindsay intended to deal with Blenkiron & Co., not Blenkarn.
**Lewis v. Averay [*] * WIR ***
- **Facts**: A rogue, claiming to be a famous actor, purchased a car from Lewis with a bad cheque.
- **Issue**: Whether the contract was void due to the mistake in the identity of the party.
- **Ruling**: The court held that the contract was voidable, not void, as the seller intended to deal with the person physically present, despite the false identity.
Would you like more details on how
TRY ME!
Start a new chat