Solle v Butcher bites the dust
On what must have been a disastrous day for law school examiners, the Court of Appeal has decided that the much debated decision of the Denning-led Court of Appeal in Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 cannot after all be reconciled with the law as stated by the House of Lords in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161: see
Back at the office, the decision would be bad news, for example, where a client buyer seeks to set aside a contract on the basis that both parties had been blissfully unaware of a serious defect in the property.
Other areas of the law of mistake remain unaffected. Rescission may still be available where the other side knew that the client was labouring under a mistake and took unfair advantage: see generally Oceanic Village Ltd v Shirayama Shokusan Co Ltd [1999] EGCS 83.
Again, Great Peace is concerned only with the formation of the contract. The mistaken party may, while admitting the contract, nevertheless be able to resist a claim for specific performance on the ground that the presence of the mistake, together with other factors, would cause the order to operate oppressively. Mistakes made in the process of reducing a contract into writing will continue to afford grounds for rectification.
Solle v Butcher bites the dust
On what must have been a disastrous day for law school examiners, the Court of Appeal has decided that the much debated decision of the Denning-led Court of Appeal in Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 cannot after all be reconciled with the law as stated by the House of Lords in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd [1932] AC 161: see Make no mistake Estates Gazette 18 January 2003, p124, where John Murdoch explains precisely what was decided in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407; [2002] 3 WLR 1617 (a summary of this decision is available at [2002] PLSCS 275). For further comment on Great Peace, see All at sea in the waters of contract Estates Gazette 19 April 2003, p97.
Back at the office, the decision would be bad news, for example, where a client buyer seeks to set aside a contract on the basis that both parties had been blissfully unaware of a serious defect in the property.
Other areas of the law of mistake remain unaffected. Rescission may still be available where the other side knew that the client was labouring under a mistake and took unfair advantage: see generally Oceanic Village Ltd v Shirayama Shokusan Co Ltd [1999] EGCS 83.
Again, Great Peace is concerned only with the formation of the contract. The mistaken party may, while admitting the contract, nevertheless be able to resist a claim for specific performance on the ground that the presence of the mistake, together with other factors, would cause the order to operate oppressively. Mistakes made in the process of reducing a contract into writing will continue to afford grounds for rectification.