Bank Notes

C - Common mistake

2/10/19

NATIXIS SA v MAREX FINANCIAL [2019] EWHC 2549 (Comm)

The claimant succeeded in a claim for damages for the defendant’s breach of contract in providing forged warehouse receipts in connection with repo transactions for the purchase of nickel. The court considered principles of common mistake [181], bailment [227], collateral contracts [251], estoppel [280], negligence [289], the impact of disclaimers [353], contributory negligence [445], the court’s approach to clauses negativing duties and liabilities [481], the reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 [513] and mitigation [538].

3/9/13

LIBERTY MERCIAN LTD v CUDDY CIVIL ENGINEERING LTD [2013] EWHC 2688 (TCC)

A construction contract could not be read as if the contractor was not the company named in it, nor would it be rectified to have that effect. The fact that a tender and letter of intent had named a different associated company and that company had started the work, was not enough to establish a mistake. The named contractor had been existence (all be it dormant) at the time of the contract and had understood the intention to be that there was to be a change making it the named contractor. But following termination of the contract the contractor remained liable to procure a guarantee, bond and warranties as those provisions survived termination, and the contractor was liable for breach of them.

25/7/13

DANY LIONS LTD v BRISTOL CARS LTD, (QB)

A contract for work to a car was not rendered void for common mistake or frustrated when it was discovered that the work would affect the car’s functionality.