This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why on earth is the Mistake in law section written as though it only applied in India??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES FOR MISTAKE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.131.177.254 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement is voided if the mistake is one of the relevant type (mutual mistake, relevant common mistake). That is plain from the text --66.108.113.187 13:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the K is voidable at the election of either party for mutual mistake - or the mistaken party for unilateral mistake. There is a difference between void and voidable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.51.88 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Shogun is a case of mistake as to identity and unilateral mistake Blink25 12:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old post, but this article needs to be updated in regards to mistake as to identity and the rule of inter praesentes. Jamesniederle (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual mistake involves a mistaken assumption of an underlying fact. Neither of the parties in Raffles were mistaken in their assumptions of any facts - the issue was that there was never a meeting of the minds because "ex peerless" meant different things to the different parties and they subjectively differed. It was no different than if one had offered to sell cotton off a ship named Titanic and the other offered to buy off a ship named Bob. The "ex peerless" may look objectively the same but subjectively they were referring to two different ships. That is not a mutual mistake. It would have been mutual mistake if they had both been talking about the SAME ship, both thinking it was arriving in October when it was really arriving in December. That would be a shared erroneous belief of a material fact. This case needs to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 35.11.51.88 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

/* Unilateral mistake */ I removed the phrase "In some cases the provocation of a mistake may be deemed an act of affected reciprocity." as I could not substantiate this term. NuclearWinner 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the distinction between a mutual mistake and a common mistake. The Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd., which is cited as an important case in common mistakes, uses the phrase "mutual mistake" in the quote from the case. Are these the same concept or are they different, and if so how. I think the article should clarify that point. --TeaDrinker 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with the very first part of theis article. It states that two types of mistake have been found under contract law and that mutual mistake is also known as common mistake. There are three types of mistake as this article goes on to show - unilateral, common and mutual. Common and mutual are not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.210.80 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We might be able to address this tag

by specifying in the WP:LEDE that the article is limited to covering the English Common Law definition. One concern I have with our legal articles (obviously expressed by the tag) is that sentences or sections might accurately reflect one Common Law country's use of the term but not another country's slightly different law. I am hesitant to remove the tag until concerns like these are addressed. (Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney or law professor.) --David Tornheim (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a similar question here: Talk:Contract#Mistake_--_new_edits. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I have boldly removed the "globalize" tag. The tag's prominence, in my opinion, gives the impression that this article suffers from some major or serious defect. I don't believe that's the case. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. The tag has been present for nearly two years, ample opportunity for editors to "globalize" the article if so inclined. Editors may still do so at any time. Absent such edits, this tag seems to unnecessarily impugn the article's quality. DonFB (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't agree with you there. We need an attorney who is an expert in international contract law to say something. Or we need WP:RS that addresses international contract law. And although most common law countries speak English, European countries speak English and do not follow common law. Lastly, the assumption that "there was ample opportunity" to correct the problem is true, but many of our legal articles suffer badly from lack of WP:RS and other major defects. So time says nothing other than the article has been neglected. If you can find some good WP:RS, I will reconsider my position. You can also post at WikiProject Law, but don't expect anything to happen... Sadly there just is not that much interest by attorneys to make these article high quality.

Also, the reason I have not added that it applies to common law jurisdictions is because common law in the U.K. (and no doubt other common law countries) does vary. (e.g. I was reading about issues of U.K. contracts having to do with a person fraudulently holding out to be someone other than who they actual were that created problems in the U.K. that were not such a big issue in the U.S. where the UCC rules addressed the problem.) Hence, with my knowledge of U.S. law and sources, I cannot safely assume these principles and WP:RS are equally valid in U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other common law countries. Only an expert (or expert WP:RS) can make that clear. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this article we have a Mutual Mistake section -and- a Common Mistake section. Aren't these the same thing??? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone raised the question earlier. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@124.188.13.100: I cannot agree with this edit. The WP:RS does not support it. See for example: [1], [2], [3],[4], [5]. The last source says mutual and bilateral mistakes are the same thing. I am pretty sure the text I have does not support your edit either. If you have WP:RS that says otherwise, let's see it. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]