header-logo header-logo

09 October 2008
Issue: 7340 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Contract

Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP [2008] EWHC 2257 (Comm), [2008] All ER (D) 116

If one party has made a mistake as to the terms of the contract and that mistake is known to the other party, then the contract is not binding. However, if one party has made a mistake about a fact on which he bases his decision to enter into the contract, but that fact does not form a term of the contract itself, then, even if the other party knows that the first is mistaken as to this fact, the contract will be binding.

Thus, the rule that a unilateral mistake means a prima facie agreement is not binding only applies when there is a unilateral mistake as to a contract term. There is no equitable jurisdiction to grant rescission of a contract where one party has made a unilateral mistake as to a fact or state of affairs which is the basis upon which the terms of the contract are agreed, but that assumption does not become a term of the contract.

Issue: 7340 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll