- Published on
Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Crédit du Nord SA (1988) QB: Study Guide
This case concerns a sale and leaseback agreement gone wrong, highlighting the interplay between contract construction, common law mistake, and equitable mistake.
I. The Facts:
Judge Steyn addressed the issue in four ways, prioritizing contract construction before moving to mistake:
(I) Express Condition Precedent: The guarantee implicitly contained an express condition precedent: the machines' existence. Since they didn't exist, CDN was discharged from the guarantee. This was the primary basis for the decision.
(II) Implied Condition Precedent: Even if the guarantee didn't have an express condition, an implied condition precedent requiring the machines' existence existed. This also discharged CDN.
(III) Common Law Mistake: If the contract were valid despite the lack of express or implied conditions, Judge Steyn analyzed common law mistake using established precedent:
III. Key Concepts & Principles:
This case concerns a sale and leaseback agreement gone wrong, highlighting the interplay between contract construction, common law mistake, and equitable mistake.
I. The Facts:
- Transaction: Mr. Bennett (borrower) entered a sale and leaseback agreement with AJB (lender) for four non-existent machines. AJB "bought" the machines for £1,000,000 and leased them back to Bennett. This was essentially a loan structured for tax advantages.
- Guarantee: CDN guaranteed Bennett's lease payments to AJB.
- Fraud: Bennett was arrested for fraud; the machines never existed.
- Dispute: AJB sued CDN on the guarantee. CDN defended, arguing common mistake.
Judge Steyn addressed the issue in four ways, prioritizing contract construction before moving to mistake:
(I) Express Condition Precedent: The guarantee implicitly contained an express condition precedent: the machines' existence. Since they didn't exist, CDN was discharged from the guarantee. This was the primary basis for the decision.
(II) Implied Condition Precedent: Even if the guarantee didn't have an express condition, an implied condition precedent requiring the machines' existence existed. This also discharged CDN.
(III) Common Law Mistake: If the contract were valid despite the lack of express or implied conditions, Judge Steyn analyzed common law mistake using established precedent:
- Bell v Lever Brothers: Steyn clarified Lord Atkin's test in Bell v Lever Brothers: a common mistake renders a contract void only if it relates to a quality that makes the subject matter "essentially and radically different" from what was believed to exist. He found this test was satisfied here – the non-existence of the machines was an essential difference. Therefore, the guarantee was void ab initio (from the beginning).
- Solle v Butcher: Steyn distinguished this case, rejecting Denning LJ's suggestion that common law mistake never voids a contract. He stated that Denning's view was a minority opinion.
- Sequence of Analysis: Crucially, Steyn emphasized the order of analysis. Before considering mistake (common law or equity), one must determine if the contract itself allocates the risk of the mistake (through express or implied conditions). Only if the contract is silent on risk allocation is there scope for mistake to apply.
III. Key Concepts & Principles:
- Sale and Leaseback: A financing method disguising a loan for tax benefits.
- Condition Precedent: A condition that must be fulfilled before a contract is binding. The presence of such a condition can negate the need to consider mistake.
- Common Law Mistake: A ground for rendering a contract void ab initio. The mistake must relate to the existence of the subject matter or a quality that makes it radically different. This is a very narrow exception.
- Equitable Mistake: A ground for setting aside a contract, offering a broader avenue for relief than common law mistake.
- Risk Allocation: Contracts often implicitly or explicitly assign the risk of certain mistakes to one party or the other.
- What are the key differences between express and implied conditions precedent? How did they affect the outcome in this case?
- What is the test for common law mistake as established in Bell v Lever Brothers? How was this test applied in Associated Japanese Bank?
- Explain the sequence of analysis a judge should follow when a common law mistake is alleged. Why is this order important?
- What role did equitable mistake play in Judge Steyn’s reasoning, and under what circumstances might it be relevant?
- How does this case highlight the importance of carefully drafting contracts to allocate risk effectively? What clauses might have prevented this dispute?
0 Comments