Mistake (ss. 20-22): bilateral and unilateral mistake, mistake of fact and of law, and restitution
LUG-103 Law of Contract including Specific Relief Act & Sale of Goods Act, Unit II: Coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, fraud and mistake. · LLB · 60 min
Mistake is the fifth vitiating factor in s. 14 and the odd one out: nobody has done anything wrong, yet the agreement may be void. This lecture reads ss. 20, 21 and 22 with their illustrations, sorts the cases on the existence, identity and quality of the subject matter (Couturier, Raffles, Bell v. Lever Brothers), on the identity of the person (Cundy v. Lindsay, Boulton v. Jones, Phillips v. Brooks) and on the nature of a document (Dularia Devi), and closes with the restitutionary consequences under ss. 65 and 72. The 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 papers each carried a 7-mark question on mistake.
Objectives
- Explain the scheme of ss. 20-22: when a mistake makes an agreement void, when it has no effect.
- Apply s. 20 to bilateral mistakes as to the existence, identity, quality and title of the subject matter, using the Act's illustrations and the leading cases.
- Distinguish mistake of fact from mistake of law, Indian from foreign law, under s. 21.
- Identify the unilateral mistakes that nonetheless prevent a contract: identity of the person and nature of the document.
- State the restitutionary consequences of a void agreement under s. 65 and of money paid under mistake under s. 72.
Slides
- Mistake: meaning, kinds and where it sits in the Act
- Section 20: the text, the Explanation and the three illustrations
- Existence and identity of the subject matter: Couturier and Raffles
- Quality and value: Bell v. Lever Brothers and the Explanation
- Mistake of law: s. 21
- Unilateral mistake: s. 22 and the identity cases
- Mistake as to the nature of the document: non est factum
- Effects: void, restitution under s. 65 and recovery under s. 72
- Two comparison tables and a worked problem
- How the examiner asks it
Loading the lecture…