The common law has always taken the view that people enter into contract voluntarily. It follows that if the contract was made without full knowledge of the facts, or if a person was forced to make a contract against his or her will, a court would consider that contract to be banned. The vast majority of contracts are valid and fully binding. However, a contract made in some circumstances can be void for instance, for mistake or illegality or voidable for misrepresentation duress or undue influence. If a contract is void, obviously it has absolutely no legal effect; it is a complete nullity from the very beginning. On the contrary, a voidable contract is valid until one of the parties voids it and until the point when it is voided, it will give rights to legal obligations and rights. A contract may also be unenforceable which means that although there is a contract between the parties, the court will simply not enforce that contract; this is the case for certain types of illegality. The statements made during the negotiation of the contract may be either terms or representations. Terms form part of the contract whereas representations do not, but representations are made by one party to induce the other to enter into the contract. A line must however be drawn between what is called "mere puff" that is to say the sort of things that advertisers tossed in order to make us buy the product and which have no legal effect, and representations which if they are false give rise to an action for misrepresentation. For instance, a sentence like "this washing powder washes whiter than white" is considered like a "mere puff". On the contrary, if while negotiating the sale of a car, A tells B that the car in question has recently had a new clutch fitted and if that statement is false, it is a misrepresentation.
[...] Therefore, they sought damages from Heller and partners. The House of Lords held that an action for negligence would lie in these circumstances but that the plaintive could not succeed in this particular case because of the disclaimer. Therefore an action will only lie if a statement was made negligently and if there is a special relationship between the parties. If a claim for negligent misstatement is successful the remedy is for damages in tort The limitations on the remedy of rescission. [...]
[...] It was held that the contract was valid since it was only a statement of opinion. On the contrary, in “Smith and Land and house property corporation” in 1884: the landlord (bailleur) of a certain property which was being sold described the tenant (locataire) of that land as most desirable knowing that in fact the tenant in question was most reluctant to pay his rent. This was held to be a misrepresentation. Similarly, a fraudulent statement of intention may be treated as a statement of fact. [...]
[...] Misrepresentation The statements made during the negotiation of the contract may be either terms or representations. Terms form part of the contract whereas representations do not but representations are made by one party to induce the other to enter into the contract. A line must however be drawn between what is called “mere puff” that is to say the sort of things that advertisers tossed in order to make us buy the product and which have no legal effect, and representations which if they are false give rise to an action for misrepresentation. [...]
[...] For instance, if the subject matter of the contract has ceased to exist for instance it has been consumed or because it has been transformed or it has been mixed with other goods in a manufacturing process. In such case, rescission is impossible. II. Mistake While Misrepresentation makes a contract voidable, an operative mistake has the effect of rendering the contract void. Therefore the entire transaction is a complete nullity and no rights or obligations can arise under their contract. Contractual M May be classified into three categories: The common mistake This takes place when the two parties make exactly the same mistake. [...]
[...] Bundy” the Court suggested that it was merely one way in which the courts could attempt to attack the problem of inequality of bargaining power between contracting parties. Undue Iinfluence renders a contract voidable and applies in cases where a person enters into a contract which is disadvantageous to him as a result of influence exerted by the other party. The doctrine applies to gifts which can be set aside on the ground of UI as well as to contract. There are two different groups of cases: Those where a relationship of confidence exists between the parties. Those where there is no special relationship. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
