In this essay, we will examine the law on mistake, its various forms, and go into great depth about

problems that might occur when contracts are made across distance. As is common knowledge, a
contract is created when an offer is validly accepted, together with sufficient compensation. However,
when parties enter into a contract based only on an assumption that later proves to be untrue, the
contract is worthless, as was the case in AIP v. John Walker & Sons. The mistake can now be made either
unilaterally (by one party) or bilaterally (by both parties). In the past, where a bilateral mistake has
occurred, courts have tended to provide remedies. A contract must be operational in nature for the
mistake to be considered void. The situation is different from equity, when the contract becomes
voidable—that is, passed on to the third party instead of being void—instead of being void.

Returning to the bilateral error, there are a number of ways in which a contract can be legally void and
not be enforceable. Starting with the very first, the courts are of the opinion that they are at "cross
purpose" (no connection between offer and acceptance) when there is a lack of true agreement, and no
legitimate contract is established (Raffles v. Wichelhaus). Then there are situations where both parties
made a mistake (common mistake), and as a result, the court terminates the contract, as it did in the
Bell v. Lever case. Another situation is when the parties misunderstand the subject issue. In this
situation, the subject matter is believed to exist by both parties, although it actually does not. In the
most notable instance, Couturier v. Hastie, the court declared the contract unenforceable. According to
S.6 of the Goods Act of 1979, "where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods, and the goods
have perished without the seller's knowledge at the time the contract is made, the contract is void"
(McKendrick), the contract is void. Another situation is when the parties believe that the contract can be
performed but are misinformed. This is the situation where the parties hold that the contract can be
carried out despite certain circumstances, such as the legal impossibility that was disproved in the
Cooper v. Phibbs case, the physical impossibility that was disproved in the Brothers v. Ochsner case, and
finally the commercial impossibility that was disproved in the Griffith v. Brymer case.

As we move forward, we tend to focus on the problem of mistakes with subject matter quality. This is
the most important element of mistake because, in cases where the mistake relates to the quality of the
subject matter, courts are frequently reluctant to declare a contract defective. To substantiate my
claim, I'd want to point to the Bell v. Lever case, in which the majority of judges declined to declare the
contract unenforceable because the mistake was not fundamentally substantial. In Scott v. Coulson,
however, judges declared the contract unenforceable because the mistake was fundamentally sufficient.
Then we frequently think about equity mistake. In the decision of Solle v. Butchers, which ruled this area
of the law, "it was held that the landlord was entitled to set aside the contract on terms." Additionally,
the mistake with regard to equity is more advantageous to a third party because it makes a contract
voidable rather than void, which is not feasible under common law. In addition, the courts have
additional latitude to void any contract on terms they think proper by satisfying specific requirements,
which is not available under common law. In the case of the great peace, which created a strict theory
making contracts worthless only in situations where fulfilment is rendered impossible, these flexibility
were overruled. After discussing bilateral mistakes and their various varieties as well as the notion of
mistake under common law, let's turn our attention to unilateral mistakes.
When one of the contractual parties makes a mistake that the other party is unaware of, this is known
as a unilateral mistake. However, where the error is unilateral, courts have been hesitant to declare a
contract unenforceable. Along with pertinent authorities, we shall talk about the many sorts of
unilateral mistakes. The first refers to the conditions of the contract. This pertains to the cases where
the opposite party knew about the first party's mistake and where the error is essentially sufficient.
Therefore, such contracts are declared void by courts (Smith v. Hughes). The following one concerns
identity. This refers to situations where one party doesn't recognise the other, who is then a "Rogue," or
thief who doesn't intend to pay, and further sells the first party's products to a third party. In these
situations, the courts must determine if the agreement between the first and second parties was valid
and ownership rights had been transferred; if so, the rogue may transfer ownership of the items to a
third party without incurring any punishment. 'Nemo dat quod non habet', or 'you cannot give what you
do not have,' is a contract law principle (study guide). After finishing the first section of the essay, we
will discuss the problems that arise when a contract is created across a distance.

When a written agreement is signed between parties who are not in the same location, the major
question is who the parties were mistakenly thinking they were forming the agreement with. In these
situations, the agreement is void. Leading instance in this matter is Cundy v. Lindsay. The most
important thing to keep in mind is that, in order for a contract to be ruled void, there must be an implied
term stipulating that it will only be made with a particular individual (Phillips v. Brooks). Contrarily, in
contracts that are made literally as "face to face," the agreement is not deemed voidable but is instead
voidable because the parties were incorrect in assuming that the other party desired to enter into a
contract (Shogun Finance v. Hudson).

The aforementioned data can be used to draw the safe conclusion that as precedents have grown, the
law on mistake has become clearer over time. Furthermore, it must be remembered that there are
situations in which disputes emerge when parties make contracts through alternative methods and are
separated geographically. In cases when there is evidence of mistake, courts nullify such contracts.