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 The contract may be rescinded, and damages may follow.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
- Scott v Coulson · Lanbuk on the Law of Contract · 2 Ch 249
- Bell v Lever Brothers · Lanbuk on the Law of Contract · AC 161
- Raffles v Wichelhaus · Lanbuk on the Law of Contract · 2 H & C 906
Lecture notes on this subject
- Contract Law Lecture: An Interactive Teaching GuideContract law
- Contract Law: First Semester NotesContract law
- Contract Law: Second Semester NotesContract law
Other law notes by subject
Arbitration
Business and human rights
Civil procedure
- The Slip Rule and Judicial Finality: Correcting Errors in Court Orders in the UK and Sierra Leone
- Sierra Leone's Court System and Starting Civil Proceedings in the High Court
- Who Addresses the Court First in Closing Speeches, and Why
- Disposal of Cases on Points of Law under Order 17
- Garnishee Proceedings under Order 50
- Interlocutory and Final Judgments
Constitutional and administrative law
Criminal procedure
- No Case Submission: Interpreting 'Otherwise Deals in or With' under the National Drugs Control Act 2008
- Legal Authorities for a No Case Submission on Drug Importation Charges
- No Case to Answer: Analysis of a Drug Importation Prosecution
- Criminal Procedure: Law School Notes
- Submission of No Case to Answer: Dealing in Prohibited Drugs
Environmental and climate law
Equity and trusts
Exam preparation
Family law
Human rights
International law
Radiation and nuclear safety law

