Skip to content

10. Mistake

Common, mutual and unilateral mistake

Posted By lanbuk.com

In simple terms

A mistake about a fact can undo a contract, but only some mistakes. They divide into common, mutual and unilateral mistake, and then ask what the mistake was about.

Mistake here means a misapprehension of fact at the time of the agreement, not a bad prediction about the future, and not a mistake about the law in the old narrow sense that is sometimes still used.

Common mistake: both parties share the same error. Mutual mistake: they are at cross purposes. Alpha thinks the contract is for one car, Fatu thinks it is for another, and neither meaning is the more reasonable. Unilateral mistake: only one party is mistaken, and the other knows or ought to know.

The mistakes that matter are these.

Where both parties think the subject matter exists and it does not, the contract is void. Scott v Coulson, and the older Strickland v Turner, are the illustrations: you cannot buy a life that has already dropped. A common mistake about a fact that goes to the root of the deal can have the same effect. Bell v Lever Brothers is the strict case. A generous settlement with a director was not void merely because, unknown to both sides, he could have been dismissed for . The mistake must make the thing contracted for essentially different.

Mutual mistake about the identity of the subject matter: Raffles v Wichelhaus, the two ships both called Peerless. There was no agreement on which cargo was sold. The contract was void.

Unilateral mistake about the terms, known to the other party, can also prevent a contract. If you snap up an offer you know is a slip, you cannot hold the other person to it. A mistake only about the quality or value of what you are buying, which the other party does not know of, does not. You are bound by the objective meaning of what you signed, unless the other side knew you were mistaken about the terms, or unless applies. Gallie v Lee (Saunders v Anglia Building Society) keeps non est factum for a person who signed a document of a wholly different kind, without carelessness.

The effect, where the doctrine applies, is that there is no contract. Contrast that with , which usually makes the contract voidable, not void.

Words and Latin in this note

Misrepresentation
A false statement of fact, made before the contract, which induced the other party to enter it. The contract may be rescinded, and damages may follow. Open the note.
Non est factum
'It is not my deed.' A narrow plea for a person who signed a document of a wholly different kind, without carelessness.

Memory map

Mistake

Key points

  • Common mistake is a shared error
  • A contract is void if the subject matter never…
  • A mistake about value, unknown to the other…

Cases

  • Raffles v Wichelhaus
  • Bell v Lever Brothers
  • Scott v Coulson

Key terms

  • Non est factum
  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of duty

Take-home points

  • Common mistake is a shared error. Mutual mistake is cross-purposes. Unilateral mistake is one person's error, known to the other.
  • A contract is void if the subject matter never existed, or if the parties never agreed which thing was sold.
  • A mistake about value, unknown to the other side, does not undo the bargain.

Cases in this topic

See also

Other law notes by subject

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.

Cite this page

'Mistake, Lanbuk on the Law of Contract' (Lanbuk) <https://www.lanbuk.com/llb/contract/mistake> accessed 31 October 2026

The accessed date is today's date. Check your course or publisher's style guide.