| 单词 | mistake |
| 释义 | mistake When both parties to an agreement are under a misunderstanding, the mistake may be classified as either a common mistake (i.e. a single mistake shared by both) or a mutual mistake (i.e. each misunderstanding the other). In the case of common mistake, there is full consensus ad idem and the mistake renders the contract void only if it robs it of all substance. The principal (and almost the only) example is when the subject matter of the contract has, unknown to both parties, ceased to exist (res extincta; see Couturier v Hastie (1856) 5 HLC 673, 10 ER 1065). Another example is if there is a mistake as to title (res sua; see Cooper v Phibbs (1867) LR 2HL 149). A common mistake about some particular attribute of the subject matter (e.g. that it is an original, not a copy) is not an operative mistake (Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161 (HL)). In the case of mutual mistake there is no real consensus, but the contract is nevertheless valid if only one interpretation of what was agreed can be deduced from the parties’ words and conduct (Malins v Freeman (1837) 2 Keen 25, 132 ER 839). Otherwise, the mistake is operative and the contract void (Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H&C 906, 159 ER 373). More recently, this matter was addressed by the High Court in Triple Seven Msn 27251 Ltd and another v Azman Air Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 1. The court held that the parties to two aircraft lease agreements had entered into the agreements on shared assumptions about essential facts which turned out to be false. However, the two contracts were not void, because the shared mistaken assumptions were not sufficiently fundamental to the contract: they did not render the lease agreements essentially and radically different from what the parties understood, nor did they make the agreements impossible to perform. In addition, the agreements made clear that the risk of the mistaken assumptions turning out to be false lay with the defendant. When only one party to a contract is under a misunderstanding, his mistake may be called a unilateral mistake and it makes the contract void if it relates to the fundamental nature of the offer and the other party knew or ought to have known of it (Hartog v Colin and Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 (HL)). Otherwise, the contract is valid so far as the law of mistake is concerned, though the circumstances may be such as to make it voidable for misrepresentation. A deed or other signed document (whether or not constituting a contract) that does not correctly record what both parties intended may be rectified by the courts. When one signatory to a document was fundamentally mistaken as to the character or effect of the transaction it embodies, he may (unless he was careless) plead his mistake as a defence to any action based on the document (see non est factum: Lewis v Clay (1897) 67 LJQB 224). In criminal cases, a mistake or accident may mean that a person lacked mens rea. It has become clear in recent years that a person has a defence if he would have had a common-law defence, such as consent, provocation, or one of the general defences, had the facts been as he mistakenly supposed them to be. If someone commits a crime in ignorance that the law forbids it, he is usually guilty (ignorantia juris non excusat: ignorance of the law is no excuse). Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a defendant’s mistaken belief in his victim’s consent will only relieve the defendant of criminal liability where the mistake is reasonable. If a defendant makes a mistake as to the civil law that prevents him having the mens rea required to be guilty of the crime, he will normally be acquitted of the crime, even if his mistake is unreasonable (for example, if he damages someone else’s property in the belief that it is his own, and this belief is caused by a mistake as to the law of property). See also general defences; intoxication. |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了4854条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。