presentationbuslaw - lund offered to sell steck his car and...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
lund offered to sell steck his car and told steck that the car had been driven only 25k miles and had never been in an accident. steck hired mechanic, he said it has about 50,000 miles and most likely in accident. bought car, numerous problems. he wanted to rescind the contracton basis of Lund's fraudulent misrepresentation of the auto condition. Will he be able to rescind the contract? unlilateral mistake of fact: mistake was due to a mathematical mistake in addition. Statements of opinion and representations of future facts are generally not subject to claims of fraud Seller of goods is allowed to use puffery to sell his or her wares without liability for fraud. intent to deceive? Voluntarily consented to its terms Fruadulent misrepresentation Unwise Bargain Misrepresentation of Concealment: did not tell about accident, or miles the party seeking to rescind has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he does not bear the risk of mistake. [This means that a party cannot rescind a contract on the ground of mutual mistake if he was aware at the time the contract was made that he had only limited knowledge of the facts but chose to treat that knowledge as sufficient]. 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Chapter 14 Mistakes, Fraud, and Voluntary Consent Now that we’ve created a contract with our four ingredients, it’s time to figure out how we can pick it apart—avoid enforcement. The whole point of having true “agreement” is that the parties have truly “gotten to ‘yes’”—that there has been what has been called for ages a “meeting of the minds.” If circumstances prevent that true “meeting of the minds,” so that the parties cannot really have “gotten to ‘yes,’” the law allows the parties to avoid the contract. These circumstances of avoidance are called “defenses.” The defenses we’ll cover in this chapter are mistake, misrepresentation, undue influence, and duress, with a mini-review of “unconscionability,” which was covered in the Legality notes. While your text has some really great coverage of these topics, I'll try to give you the Washington perspective, as well. MISTAKE One thing that’s really important to do right away is to distinguish “mistakes of fact” from “mistakes of value.” Mistakes of Fact Bilateral ” (also commonly called “ mutual ”) mistakes of fact occur when both parties are mistaken about the same material fact, and the Raffles case mentioned on pp. 286-87 (the good ship s Peerless) is a great illustration of mutual mistake—there was no “meeting of the minds”—the parties were mistaken about the same material fact—which ship? In a mutual mistake of fact situation, the common remedy is “rescission”—canceling the contract —because there is no true agreement. In Roberts v. Century Contractors, Inc. , on pp.287- 88, the court found that the doctor’s mistaken diagnosis of “maximum medical improvement” became the mutual mistake of the parties, and that their mistake was so “material” that it
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 11

presentationbuslaw - lund offered to sell steck his car and...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online