Court Rules for Voiding Contracts Due to Expalining Mistake

Title: Rules for Declaring a Contract Void for Unilateral Mistake as to Identity in English Law

Introduction
In English law, the issue of unilateral mistake as to identity in contract law can lead to the declaration of a contract as void. This essay will discuss the rules that a court must consider when deciding whether to void a contract due to unilateral mistake as to identity. Important legal principles and cases will be examined in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of this aspect of contract law.

General Principles of Mistake in English Contract Law
Mistake in contract law is viewed objectively, as established in the case of Smith v Hughes. The mistake must precede the contract, as seen in Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v John Walker & Sons Ltd. Furthermore, the mistake must induce the contract and be a mistake of fact, not of law.

Unilateral Mistake as to Identity
Unilateral mistake as to identity occurs when one party to a contract is mistaken about the identity of the contracting party. For a contract to be void due to unilateral mistake as to identity, the identity of the contracting person must be of fundamental importance to the contract, as shown in Cundy v Lindsay. Additionally, the other party must be aware of the mistake, as established in Boulton v Jones, and reasonable steps must have been taken to check the identity of the other party as seen in Citi Bank plc v Brown Shipley and Co Ltd.

Distinction Between Identity and Attributes
English law distinguishes between mistakes as to identity, which may render the contract void, and mistakes as to attributes, such as creditworthiness, which do not affect the validity of the contract, as illustrated in Lewis v Averay.

Presumptions Based on Face💥to💥Face and Absent Contracting
In cases where the parties are face💥to💥face, the presumption is in favor of the innocent party, known as inter praesentes, as shown in Phillips v Brooks Ltd. In contrast, when the parties are not face💥to💥face, the presumption is different, known as inter absentes, as seen in Kings Norton Metal Co v Edridge.

Reasoning in Specific Cases
In the case of Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson, the court demonstrated the complexity of considering unilateral mistake as to identity, highlighting the importance of each party’s knowledge and steps taken to verify identity in determining the validity of the contract.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the rules relating to unilateral mistake as to identity in English contract law are crucial to ensuring the fairness and integrity of contractual obligations. By considering the general principles of mistake, the distinction between identity and attributes, and the presumptions based on face💥to💥face and absent contracting, courts can make informed decisions when determining whether a contract should be declared void due to unilateral mistake as to identity.