What does ex Peerless mean?

What does ex Peerless mean?

It is immaterial by what ship the cotton was to arrive, so that it was a ship called the “Peerless.” The words ” to arrive ex ‘Peerless,'” only mean that if the vessel is lost on the voyage, the contract is to be at an end.

What was the conclusion in Raffles v Wichelhaus 1864?

Decision/Outcome It was held that the contract between the complainant and defendant was not enforceable.

What was the issue in the Raffles v Wichelhaus?

Raffles delivered the cotton to a ship named Peerless, which departed from Bombay in December. Wichelhaus refused to pay. Wichelhaus argued that the cotton was to be delivered by a different ship also called Peerless, which had departed Bombay in October. Raffles sued for breach of contract.

What is the name of the case that established and was used to illustrate mutual mistake?

Raffles v Wichelhaus [1864] EWHC Exch J19, often called “The Peerless” case, is a leading case on mutual mistake in English contract law.

What is a mutual mistake in contract law?

A mutual mistake occurs when the parties to a contract are both mistaken about the same material fact within their contract. They are at cross-purposes. There is a meeting of the minds, but the parties are mistaken. Hence the contract is voidable. Mistake of Fact.

What are two kinds of bilateral mistakes?

There are two types of bilateral mistakes that can occur: subject matter mistakes and a possibility of performance mistakes. Subject matter mistakes occur when both parties make a mistake regarding the subject matter of the contract.

Who won Lucy vs zehmer?

The Court held that the Defendants’ true intent in agreeing to sell their farm was not determinative so long as their words and actions warranted a reasonable person’s belief that a contract was intended.

Who bears the risk of mutual mistake?

a Party
§154, When a Party Bears the Risk of a Mistake A party bears the risk of mistake when (a) the risk is allocated to him by agreement of the parties, or (b) he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the mistake relates but treats his limited …

What are the three types of mistake?

Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: the ‘unilateral mistake’, the ‘mutual mistake’ and the ‘common mistake’. The distinction between the ‘common mistake’ and the ‘mutual mistake’ is important.

What is law estoppel?

/eˈstɒpl/ us. a legal rule which prevents someone from saying in court that something they have previously stated as true in court, or that has been established by the court as true, is in fact not true: The Court held that there was no estoppel.

What are the three types of duress?

Categories of Duress in Contract Law

• Physical duress. Physical duress can be directed at either a person or goods.
• Economic duress. Economic duress occurs when one party uses unlawful economic pressure to coerce another party into a contract that they would otherwise not agree to.

What is unilateral and bilateral mistake?

A bilateral mistake can usually be voided by both parties of the contract because both parties are acting under false information. Unilateral mistake of fact: When only one party is mistaken on the terms of the contract.

Did Zehmer sell his farm?

Lucy and Zehmer consumed a significant quantity of distilled spirits and discussed the possible sale of the farm. Zehmer wrote on the back of the restaurant’s receipt stating, “We hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000.00, title satisfactory to buyer”.

Does a misspelled name void a contract?

If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid? Yes. It is valid as long as the contract as a whole permits identifying the parties (unequivocally) and ascertaining their role with respect to the contract.

What are the two types of mistake?

Types of Mistake. A mistake is of two types: Mistake of Law, Mistake of Fact.

What is estoppel in simple terms?

Definition of estoppel : a legal bar to alleging or denying a fact because of one’s own previous actions or words to the contrary.