Common Mistake in Contract Law

English law has long struggled to understand the effect of a fundamental common mistake in contract formation. Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161 recognises that a common mistake which totally undermines a contract renders it void. Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 recognises a doctrine of 'mistake in equity' under which a serious common mistake in contract formation falling short of totally undermining the contract could give an adversely affected party the right to rescind the contract. This article accepts that the enormous difficulty in differentiating these two kinds of mistake justifies the insistence by the Court of Appeal in The Great Peace [2003] QB 679 that there can be only one doctrine of common mistake. However, the article proceeds to argue that where the risk of the commonly mistaken matter is not allocated by the contract itself a better doctrine would be that the contract is voidable.

Mistake, frustration and implied conditions in leases

Discusses the Court of Appeal decision in Graves v Graves on determination of a tenancy by reason of common mistake and frustration. Reviews earlier case law regarding the effects on a contract of a common mistake or frustrating event. Considers the effect of the common mistaken belief held by the parties in Graves when executing a tenancy agreement that the tenant would be entitled to housing benefit, in particular whether by reason of it a condition was implied into the tenancy that the contract would be terminated if housing benefit was unavailable.

Common mistake:theoretical justification and remedial inflexibility

Discusses the implications for the doctrine of common mistake of the Court of Appeal ruling in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd on whether a contract for the hire of a ship was void on the ground of common mistake regarding the position of the ship. Reviews the origins of the doctrine of common mistake and the relationship between the doctrine and the implication of terms. Considers the determination of impossibility. Examines the role of equity in common mistake and remedial equitable intervention.

Engaging Students in the Implementation of Criterion Referenced Assessment in First Year Law

The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) University Academic Board approved a new QUT Assessment Policy in September 2003, which requires a criterion-referenced approach as opposed to a norm-referenced approach to assessment across the university(QUT,MOPP,2003). In 2004, the QUT Law School embarked upon a process of awareness raising about criterion-referenced assessment amongst staff and from 2004 – 2005 staggered the implementation of criterion-referenced assessment in all first year core undergraduate law units. This paper will briefly discuss the benefits and potential pitfalls of criterion referenced assessment and the context for implementing it in the first year law program, report on student’s feedback on the introduction of criterion referenced assessment and the strategies adopted in 2005 to engage students more fully in criterion referenced assessment processes to enhance their learning outcomes.