Accg614 - week3

Accg614 week3

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: and each other and are at cross- purposes (talking about different things) so there is no genuine agreement between the par=es Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) – misunderstanding of ships name for co\on delivery to England and when the co\on ships would arrives. Contract was ‘void’ the par=es never had a ‘mee=ng of the minds’. –  The court will apply an objec=ve test based on the ‘reasonable person’ standard to try and preserve the agreement. –  If the evidence is so conflic=ng that it would be impossible to infer any agreement between them, the contract will be declared void. 11 Non est factum Non est factum (‘it is not my deed’ as in ‘not my contract’) Only applies to wri\en contracts –  There is a mistake as to the nature of agreement and the mistake arises because of a misunderstanding based on a par=es...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 04/01/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online