Doctrine of Mistake in Common Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Doctrine of Mistake in Common Law - Case airfield ExampleIn some other human faces even when the digest is valid in law, it may be rendered voidable in equity on the ground of steal.The general thinking used to be that mistakes could non be operative in law until in case of Kleinwort Benson v Liverpool City Council3 when the House of Lords say that this rule is not part of English law. Treitel4 has considered the laws relating to mistake under five headings Common Mistake correlative Mistake Unilateral Mistake Mistake as to Identity Mistake Relating to Documents.While commentators are not agreed as to the classifications of Mistake, Treitel5 in his book The Laws of contract, 11th edition, deals with Mistake by contrasting Mistake nullifying assume (Parties reach agreement which is based on a fundamental mistaken assumption) with Mistake negativing consent (Where mistake prevents the parties from reaching an agreement e.g. where they intend to contract about different things). Some commentators involve gone on to divide mistake into two parts, that is, common mistake shared by the parties, and mistake in communication. In a common mistake shared by both parties, although both parties apparently in agreement, have entered into the contract on the basis of a false and fundamental assumption. It is called common mistake since both parties illuminate the same mistake. The contract is not necessarily void at law in these circumstances.In the case In the case of doorbell v prize Brothers Ltd.6, definition of common mistake in contract law was made. During March of 1929 the Niger Company, which dealt in trade in the western African area, was merging with a stir company and wanted to get rid of two employees Mr. Bell and Mr. Snelling, who were hired as chairman and vice-chairman of the company. chairman DArcy barrel maker on behalf of prise Brothers7 made a deal with Bell and Snelling to leave the company in exchange for a sizable compensation (a Golden ha ndshake8). At the time of the agreement both parties believed that the workplace contract had not been breached and thus the company would not have been able to terminate Bell and Snellings study under any other circumstances. It was later revealed that there was in fact grounds for termination at the time of the agreement as Bell and Snelling had used their positions to make a secret profit for themselves.Lever brought an action claiming recission of the compensation agreement because of mistake of fact.At trial the jury ensnare that Bell and Snellings illicit dealings breached the employment contract and that if the Lever Brothers had known they would not have entered into the agreement. Furthermore, the jury found that at the time of the agreement Bell and Snelling did not have in mind their illicit acts.Lever Brothers pursued the case vigorously as it considered the behavior of Bell and Snelling simply unacceptable. To appreciate this legal betrothal you have to understand t he background of the personalities involved. Francis DArcy Cooper - a senior partner with his uncles accountancy firm Cooper Brothers and staunch Quaker9 - became chairman of audit client Lever Brothers in the early 1920s. He was hired by Lord Leverhulme10 when the banks were threatening to call the loans on the company due to devastating losses incurred by the saucily acquired Niger Company that crippled Lever Brothers. Cooper arranged financing from Barclays Bank under the