正在編輯用戶:Hinnia/Mistake （章節）

= Mistake in Equity =

== When it Occurs ==

=== Historical Position (Solle v Butcher): ===

* Equity could provide relief for a wider range of mistakes than common law.
* A contract valid at law could be voidable in equity and set aside on terms.

* Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 K.B. 671 (OVERRULED)
** Facts: Lease granted based on a shared mistake that the flat was not rent-controlled.
** Holding (Denning LJ): 
*** Lease not void at law, but equity would rescind it on terms (tenant could choose to pay correct rent or leave).
** Principle (Historical): 
*** Equity had a separate, more flexible jurisdiction for a "common misapprehension" that was "fundamental".

=== The End of the Doctrine ===

* Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407
** Holding: The Court of Appeal expressly overruled Solle v Butcher.
** Reasoning: The equitable doctrine was inconsistent with Bell v Lever Bros.
** The House of Lords in Bell could not have overlooked a wider equitable right to rescind.
* Modern Principle
** NO separate equitable doctrine of common mistake
** Test for common mistake
** Same in law and equity
** Strict Bell/Great Peace test
** Contract is either valid or void at common law

== Effect of Mistake in Equity ==
Historically (Solle): Equity could make a contract voidable and grant rescission on terms, giving flexible remedial outcomes.

Since Great Peace: The equitable jurisdiction to rescind for common mistake no longer exists. 

Only relief is at common law (contract void) or under other doctrines (misrepresentation, undue influence, etc.).

== Equitable Relief ==
Equity still plays a role, but not under a separate "mistake" heading.

=== Refusal of a Specific Performance ===

* Equity may refuse this remedy if it would be unjust due to a mistake, even if the contract is valid at law
* Malins v Freeman (1837):
** Specific performance refused where the buyer bid for the wrong lot at auction due to a catalogue error.
* Tamplin v James (1880):
** Specific performance granted.
** A buyer's mistake about the extent of land was his own folly, not induced by the seller.

"a Court of Equity will refuse specific performance of an agreement when the Defendant has entered into it under a mistake, and where injustice would be done to him were performance to be enforced.  The most common instances of such refusal on the ground of mistake are cases in which there has been some unintentional misrepresentation on the part of the Plaintiff or where from the ambiguity of the agreement different meanings have been given to it by the different parties."

=== Rescission ===

* For Misrepresentation or Fraud:
** Remains a core equitable remedy. A contract induced by a false statement can be rescinded.
* For Common Mistake:
** As per Great Peace, rescission is not available
** UNLESS mistake makes the contract void at common law.

=== Rectification (A Key Equitable Remedy) ===

* Corrects a written document that, due to a mistake, does not reflect the true agreement of the parties.
* Common Mistake Rectification: To reflect what both parties actually agreed.
** FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1361 (Subjective Test)
*** Court looks at what the parties actually intended, not what a reasonable observer would think.
*** Party seeking rectification must prove, on convincing evidence, that:
**** Parties had a common continuing intention (subjective actual intention) up to the time of the contract.
**** Outward expression of accord (they communicated this intention to each other).
**** By mistake, the written contract does not reflect that common intention.
** F.E. Rose (London) Ltd v William Pim Jnr & Co. [1953] 2 Q.B. 450
*** Rectification refused.
*** Parties agreed to buy "feveroles".
**** Both mistakenly thought this meant horsebeans.
*** Document correctly recorded "feveroles".
**** No mistake in recording their agreement, only in its commercial effect.
* Unilateral Mistake Rectification:
** To reflect what one party understood
*** Where the other party knew of the mistake and it would be unconscionable to rely on the document.
** Unilateral Rectification & Unconscionability:
** If one party (A) knows the other (B) is mistaken about a term
*** (A) fails to draw attention to it
*** May be unconscionable for A to rely on the document.
*** Rectification may be granted to reflect B's understanding (Commissioner for the New Towns v Cooper).

* Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive v NURMTW [2024] UKSC 37
** Clarifying Ambiguity: The word "agreement" is ambiguous. It can mean:
*** The transaction itself (the exchange of promises), or
*** The document that records that transaction.
*** Rectification corrects the second where it mistakenly records the first.
** Jurisdiction is General
*** Power to rectify is not limited to specific types of documents (like contracts).
**** Applies to any document intended to record a transaction [28].
** Rectification as a "Safety-Valve" Against Objective Interpretation
*** English law uses an objective approach to interpretation
**** (what a reasonable person would understand).
*** Can give a document a meaning different from what the parties subjectively intended and understood.
** Remedy: Rectification acts as a "safety-valve"
* Prevent injustice where one party could take advantage of objective interpretation that contradicts what both parties intended 

== Relationship between Common Law and Mistake in Equity ==

* Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Credit du Nord S.A. [1989] 1 WLR 255 (Steyn J)
** Pre-Great Peace View:
** Proposed a coherent structure:
*** Narrow doctrine of common mistake at law (void) supplemented by a more flexible doctrine in equity (voidable). 
*** A court should first consider common law; if the contract is valid at law, it may still be voidable in equity.
* Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407:
** Modern Position
*** Abolished the supplementary equitable doctrine.
** The Court of Appeal held that Solle was inconsistent with the House of Lords' decision in Bell v Lever Bros. 
** Only one doctrine of common mistake in English law
*** Strict common law doctrine set out in Bell and refined in Great Peace. 
**** A contract is either valid or void. 
**** Equitable jurisdiction to rescind on terms for common mistake no longer exists.
* Consequence: 
** Law is less flexible but more certain.
** Relief for onerous bargains resulting from mistake must be found elsewhere
*** (e.g., misrepresentation, undue influence, or a successful common law plea).