- Published on
A Roberts & Co Ltd & Another v Leicestershire County Council (1961) Ch
This case centers on the principles of common mistake and rectification in contract law. Understanding the distinction is crucial.
I. The Facts:
When studying this case, focus on the difference between common and unilateral mistake and the application of rectification. Practice identifying scenarios where rectification may or may not be appropriate. The key factor is the knowledge of the other party concerning the mistake.
This case centers on the principles of common mistake and rectification in contract law. Understanding the distinction is crucial.
I. The Facts:
- Tender Process: Leicestershire County Council solicited tenders for school construction.
- Initial Agreement (Implied): A Roberts & Co submitted a tender implying an 18-month contract duration (this is key – it was implied through the negotiation process, not explicitly written).
- Contract Alteration: The Council unilaterally extended the contract period to 30 months without informing Roberts & Co of this significant change.
- Signing: Roberts & Co signed the altered contract without noticing the change. Crucially, had they noticed the alteration, they would have demanded a higher price.
- Common Mistake: The court first considered whether a common mistake voided the contract. A common mistake requires both parties to be mistaken about the same fundamental aspect of the contract. The court found this wasn't the case here. Why? Because Roberts & Co believed the contract was for 18 months, while the Council believed it was for 30 months. They were mistaken about different things—a mutual mistake, not a common mistake.
- Unilateral Mistake: The court then shifted to the concept of unilateral mistake—where only one party is mistaken. This is where the key finding lies. The Council knew Roberts & Co believed the contract was for 18 months. This knowledge on the Council's part is paramount.
- Rectification: The court granted rectification. Rectification is an equitable remedy that corrects a written document to reflect the true agreement of the parties. Because the Council was aware of Roberts & Co's mistaken belief (the 18-month period), it was deemed unconscionable for the Council to benefit from this known mistake. The court rectified the contract, altering the duration to 18 months – the term the Council knew Roberts & Co believed to be in the contract.
- Common Mistake vs. Unilateral Mistake: Understand the difference. Common mistake requires both parties to be mistaken about the same fact; unilateral mistake involves only one party's mistake, which the other party is aware of.
- Rectification: Rectification is an equitable remedy, meaning the court’s decision is based on fairness and justice. It's not automatic; it requires proof that a written document doesn't accurately reflect the parties' actual agreement. The crucial element here is the knowledge of the other party's mistake. The mistaken party must prove the other party knew of the mistake.
- Silence: The Council's silence about the alteration was significant. The court found this silence, coupled with their knowledge of Roberts & Co's belief, contributed to the decision for rectification.
When studying this case, focus on the difference between common and unilateral mistake and the application of rectification. Practice identifying scenarios where rectification may or may not be appropriate. The key factor is the knowledge of the other party concerning the mistake.
0 Comments