Skip to main content

Mistake in Indian Contract Act

 MISTAKE in Indian Contract Act, 1872

By: Robin Pandey                                                                                            Date: 10/03/2022

Mistake means an erroneous belief about something. It has not been defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Mistake which vitiates a contract must be fundamental, e.g., "as to the substances of the whole consideration going. to the root of the matter". Sections 20, 21 and 22 deal with mistake. 

According to Section 20, "Where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void." 

Section 21 provides: "A contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in India, but a mistake as to any law not in force in India has the same effect as a mistake of fact. “

Section 22 lays down: "A contract is not voidable merely because it was Caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact.

Thus mistake may be divided into the following types:

1. Mistake of law 

(a) Mistake of Indian Law;

(b) Mistake of Foreign Law. 

2. Mistake of fact 

(a) Bilateral mistake; 

(b) Unilateral mistake

1. Mistake of law Mistake of Indian Law: Section 21 states that a contract is not (a) voidable because it was caused by mistake as to any law in force in India. Thus ignorance of Indian law is no excuse. It is the duty of every citizen to know either by professional advice or otherwise so much law as concerns him for the matters he is transacting. A person cannot avoid a contract entered into on the ground of mistake of law. Illustration appended to Section 21 provides that where A and B make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is barred by the Indian Law of Limitation the Contract is not voidable.

However, relief can be granted where the mistake is so fundamental as to prevent any real agreement ""upon the same thing in the same sense from being formed. Thus if there is no consensus ad idem it is immaterial of what kind the mistake was or how it was brought about. [Also See: Section 72 of the Act.]

(b) Mistake of Foreign Law: As no one is expected to be conversant with the foreign law, section 21 provides that a mistake as to law not in force in India has the same effect as a mistake of fact

2. Mistake of fact

Mistake of fact Mistake of fact may be of two types, e.g. (a) bilateral mistake and (b) unilateral mistake.

(A) Bilateral mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement 

Section 20 says that where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void. The explanation to Section 20 states that an erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing which forms the subject matter of the agreement is not to be deemed as mistake as to a matter of fact. The conditions for application of Section 20 are as follows:

 (a) Both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake, 

(b) the mistake relates to a matter of fact, and 

(c) the fact about which they are at mistake is essential to the agreement:

The Section gives the following illustrations:

(a) A agrees to sell to B a specific cargo of goods supposed to be on its way from England to Bombay. It turns out that, before the day of bargain, the ship conveying the cargo has been cast away, and the goods lost. Neither party was aware of this fact. The agreement is void as the subject-matter of the agreement was non-existent at the time of making of the agreement. 

(b) A agrees to buy from B a certain horse. It turns out that the horse was dead at the time of bargain, though neither party was aware of the fact. The agreement is void. This is also a case of non-existent of the subject-matter of the agreement. 

(c) A. being entitled to an estate for the life of B, agrees to sell it to C. B was dead at the time of the agreement but both parties were ignorant of the fact. The agreement is void.

(B) Unilateral mistake 

Section 22 provides that "A contract is not voidable merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact." A mistake by one of the parties is called unilateral mistake and it does not affect the validity of the contract. This is best explained with the help of the following case:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree