M4 / Lectures / Contract Law / Viating Factors / Mistake EES] Mistake Lecture Share this: ‘The second ofthe vitating factors ofa contract we will be exploring is Mistake, The law of mistake refers to where both partes have ‘entered a contact under the same fundamental mistake, which will ender the contact void ‘The significance ofthe contract being void willbe analysed in dltal ater inthis chapter, but the essential characteristic of avoid contracts that there i no choice of the partes whether or not to void the contract, under the law twill automatically be so, Ths differs {rom the ‘voidable’ postion under misrepresentation Mistake isa remedy which can arse either through the common aw or equity, however, the decision in Great Pace Shipping Ltd v Teas Salvage International 2d (2003] QB 679 has limited mistake most tothe commen law, ‘There ace three broad categories of mistake which this chapter wil explore: 1. Non-Agreement mistake 2, Mutual agreement mistake 2. Unilateral mistake Non-Agreement mistake ‘A.pan-agreement mistake refers to where the partis have reached a valid agreement, but would lke nlify this agreement due toa mistake as to the terms or subject ofthe agreement Ths is often refered to 25 ‘common’ mistake, 35a claim for nan-agreement mistake requires that both parties made the same mistake, The twa main requisites for non-agresment mistake areas follows {The mistaken matter must be one which is fundamental tothe parties’ decision to enter into the agreement 2. The party wishing to rely on common mistake must have reasonable grounds for their belief ‘This type of mistake wll operate where one of the pois wishes to negate the agreement for mistake, but the ather party denies this mistake 1am consideration: n the event ofa mistake in which bath partes are mistaken, wihy do you think one party may deny there is 2 mistake? 8For the purpose of requirement the courts have pre-determined a numberof categories which wll be presumed to be fundamental to the partes decision to enter the contact. We will now examine each of these in turn Res Extincta - Mistake as to the subject matter ‘The case of Strickland v Turner (1852) 7 Ex 208 confirmed that a mistake as to the subject matter would amount to one which is fundamental tothe decision o enter the agreement In ths case, there was 2 contract forthe annuity ofa person’ life, but there was 2 (rather large!) mistake, in thatthe person was already dead Perishing of specific goods ‘The perishing of specie goods will amount to a fundamental mistake, as per Section 6 ofthe Sale of Goods Act 1979, Non-existent goods Section 6 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 requies thatthe goods have perished, therefore, they wil have needed to exist at some point. Goods which have never existed at al will also amount to a fundamental breach, asin Asacioted Japanese Bank (ntematianal ta v Credit du Nord {1985} 1 WLR 255 Exceptions - has one patty taken responsibil for non-existence? You should be careful when automatically jumping to the conclusion that because the subject matter of the contract does not exis, that ‘hi will amount toa vali claim fr mistake. I'here is a term in the contract which allocates the sk to one pafy inthe event of non= ‘egstence or non-deivery of the goods, any breach of this wll amount to a breach of contract, meaning a claim for mistake would not be able to be made. Mcfie v Commonveith Disposals Commision(1951) 84 CLR 37 is authority fortis point ‘The distinction between mistake and frustration ‘Aturther common error when assessing contracts forthe doctrine of mistake is to identily the non-existence ofa subject matter asa essentially relates to where after the formation of the matte for frustration. The doctrine of frustration is covered in later chapter, contrac the obligations under the cantract become impossible to complete, ‘The key clstnction is where the impossibility ofthe contract occurs. f the impossibly, unknown tothe parties, i present before the creation ofthe contact, ths wll amount to mistake. Where the contract becomes impossible subsequent tothe creation of his wll amount to frustration, The case of Amalgamated Investment & Property Co td vJohn Walker & Sons Ltd {19771 1 WLR 164s evidence of ‘this. This distinction will become clearer once you cover the chapter on frustration. Res Sua - Mistake as to ownership This category of fundamental mistake refers to where two partes contrac forthe purchase of some kindof property, but unknown to both ofthese parties, the purchaser ofthe property already owns the property Cooper v Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149 san example of sucha situation. In ths case, there was an agreement to purchase a Tease, but unknown the both paris, the purchasing party akeady had aie entitlement to the lease through other means, Therefore, the cont could have been set aside for mistake, Mistake as to quality of the subject matt Mistake as tothe quality of subject matter isa fay straightforward concept it refers to where bath partes believe the subject mater is of 2 certain quality, or has a certain quality, whereas in realty it does not. An example would be a purchase for a famous foatbller's boots which have been signed them, iit was believed tobe ofthis quality at the te of contracting, and then subsequently cam light hat they were net actually the footballers boots this would be a mistake as tothe quality of the subject mater. Is a mistake as to the quality sufficiently fundamental to a contract? ‘The law of mistake is concemed with the impossibilty ofa contract being completing, therefore, this suggests that mistake as ta the quality of 2 subject matter would net be sufficiently fundamental toa contact, as it would not render the contract impossible. Despite ‘this case law has developed to allow the doctrine of mistake to operate in specific circumstances which will e covered later in this sub- A claim for mistake or a breach of the satisfactory quality term? ‘The distinction between these two principles is very important. Section 142} ofthe Sale of Goods Act 1979 outlines that all goods sold should be of ‘satisfactory qual’. This refers tothe tangible quality of the goods, some examples are as follows + Abrand new car which keeps breaking down + Some headphones in which only one side of the audio warks + An expensive suit which s discoloured after the fst wash ‘Armistake 2s to quality refers toa mistake of some quality which makes the thing essentially diferent from the thing it was believed to be’ as per Lord Atkin in Bell v Lever Bras Lt 1932} AC 161Case in Focus: Bel v Lever Bros Ltd (1932] AC 161 In this cat, the Lever ras appointed the swo defendants to postions of power in subsdiany of hi comaany. The company was cetremely success ul and made 2 lot of revenue, The two defendants then retire. As part of their retirement package, they received large bonuses of £30,000 and £20,000 each twas subsequently discovered thatthe defendants had been involved ina cartel in order to steal information and make money, Lever Bros attempted to claim thatthe contract was void for mistake of fact. ‘The House of Lords held the contract was not void for mistake, The mistake was not sufficiently close tothe subjact matter ofthe contrac the retirement payments). Examples of this would be + Acontract fora particular artist's work, and it turns out nat tobe by that artist * Acontract for 104g of potassium, but it turns out to bea different substance 'A comparison between the two would bea contact for an amount of ‘Granny Smith’ apples. Ifthe apples were rotting and fll of worms, this would be a breach ofthe ‘satisfactory qualty term under Section 142), whereas ifthe goods were a different type of apples, ‘this would be a claim for mistake as to the qualty ofthe goods t should be noted that just because theres 9 mistake as to the quality of the goods this does not mean that this will amount toa claim fo mistake ‘The test of ‘essential difference Lord Atkin in Bell Lever Bros Lid stated the goods must be essentially ciferent in order to amount toa claim for mistake. Later in is judgment he clarified ths approach and eutlined its scope and imitations. can be concluded that it hasan extremely narow scope Lord Atkin use this hypothetical scenario in order to highlight his point: “A buys » picture from B: bath A and B believe ft to bea work ofan ald master, and 3 high price i pid. es copy. A has no remedy in the absence of representation or warranty” Lord Atkin stated that it was nat enough to merely state If had known the tue facts | would not have entered into this contract’. His view was that this kind of issue could easly be prevented by the use ofan express term in the contract. Taking the example ofthe purchase of place of ar, if the artists important, one ofthe terms of the contract shouldbe ‘this contrac is forthe sale ofa piece of arty. This would ensure a remedy. ‘The judicial reasoning for such an approach is unclear. Lord Atkin referred to his hypothetical scenario, explaining that between 3 contract forthe painting actully painted by the old master, anc the madera cony, there was no essential difference. The subject mater of the painting was sti that ofthe old master's Tritel one ofthe most distinguished academics of contract law, disagrees with this approach and suggested anew approach whereby ifs particular quality isso important tothe parties that they use it to describe the subject mater, it could amount to a mistake. ‘Therefore, in Lard Alei’s hypothetical scenario, as they describe the subject mater with reference ta the old master it could amou 2 claim for mistake. Despite this being a seemingly logical approach it was ejected in Leaf vlaternational Galleries (1950) 2 KB 86. In Leofv eternational Galleries, a contract was formed fr a painting believed to be created by the famous artist, Constable. There was no express term a5 oi being a Constable painting, therefore the courts confrmed the approach of Bell v Lever Sras id stating ‘What he contracted to buy and what he bought was 2 specific chattel, namely, an el pai true to say that te plaintif stil has the article which he contracted to buy! 319 of Salsbury Cathedral and]. it remains Clearly, again, the courts needed! an expres term in the contract to resltin a breach of contract fora remedy; mistake could nat provide 9 remedy inthis case The limited exception to the ‘essential difference’ rule ‘Theres one extremely imited exception to the essential diference rule, which will allow a claim for mistake to be as tothe quay of the subject matter. This rule was created in Associated Japanese Bank v Credit Du Nord SA [1888] ! WLR 255, Te facts ar key, andl they are 3 fllows: Case in Focus: Associated Japanese Bank v Credit Du Nord SA [1989] 1 WLR 255 Im Associated Jopanese Bank the Bank (A) had an agreement with a party (8) to purchase four machines fram him. Following the ppurchace, they would lease the machines back to him, The transaction requited a guarantor, therfore a second bank (C) guaranteed the agreement forthe frst bank. The party selling the machines turned out t be a fraud, and ence the bank had pai forthe machines, he disappeared and they discovered the machines never existed, The bank then attempted to enforce their quarantee against the second bank forthe £1,000,000 purchase price. The second bank attempted to rly on mistake as to the qualty ofthe subject mater, ‘The courts decided thatthe subject matter ofthe contract was essentially diferent to what the second bank agreed to, and therefore ‘the contract was vad for mistake. The essential diferance was thatthe contract was forthe guarantee of existing machines, not machines which aid not exist.‘The application from Assocated Japanese Bank v Credit Du Nord SA is extremely Imited: therefore it's sensible to conclude that under rast circumstances, mistake as tothe quality ofthe subject matter will not result in an actionable elim for mistake. Mutual agreement mistake {An agreement mistakes one in which a fundamental mistake has been made relating to the terms ofthe contract which prevent the formation of 3 legaly binding contract. Ths is often referred to as an ‘offer and acceptance’ mistake, The paris will subjectively believe ‘they have formed a legally binding contract, but in reality have not done so. This irs examination of agreement mistake will concentrate ‘on mutual agreement mistake, where both ofthe parties tothe contract hold this belie, ‘An example ofa mutual mistake can be found in Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864) 2 Hurl &C 06, where a contract was made fr the purchase of some cotton which would be delivered by 2 ship named Peerless which sailed from Bombay. However, there was wo ships named Peetless’ which sailed from Bombay, ane in October and one in December, One party beleved the contract was forthe delivery in October, and the other party believed it was a contract forthe delivery in December. Therefore, as per offer and acceptance rales, ‘there was no mitror agreement due to this mistake, This was a easonable mistake to make, therefore the contact was void for mistake ‘The case of Silbv Hips (1870) LR 6 QB 597 provides contrasting Set of facts. mths case, a contract Was formed forthe purchase of ‘some oats, thi the purchaser had previously used 9 sample of When the oats forthe contract wee delivered, the purchaser complained that they were new oa, rather than old oats, and he was mistaken as to this, The contract never stated that the oats were to be old or new. ‘This argument was rejected, a5 a9 agreement was formed via the sample of the ons. The purchaser agreed to purchase alot ofthe oats he had been given a sample of, which he was, there was no question 36 tothe agreement, and the purchaser was simply mistaken 96 to ‘the sample ofthe oats being old when they were new. Test for mutual agreement mistake ‘The courts will apply an objective tet tothe question of whether there is an agreement. considering whether one party's interpretation ‘was more reasonable than the thers. ‘The leading authority for ths testis Smith v Hughes, which was examined above. The most reasonable approach tothe contract was the ‘one of the defendants, who believed the agreement was formed based on the sample oats. The doctrine of fault in mutual agreement mistake ‘The courts have identified a doctrine of fautin he aw of mutual agreement mistake, Even where there can been 3 valid agreement, if ‘one party is responsible forthe mistake ofthe other party, the cour wil dcide he case in favour ofthe aggrieved pary. ‘This approach is highlighted in Seven Bree ond Co. Hindley and Co, [1913] 3 KB S64, In this ase, there was an auction far two los of ‘argo from a ship. One was hemp, and one was tow. The auction description did not Ist thatthe two lots af cargo had different contents. Both lots af cargo were in the same packaging, and there were no distinguishing factors between the ‘wo (aside from the contents). A prospective buyer inspected one of the lots of cargo which contained hemp, and assumed that both lots contained hemp based on the identical packaging. He then purchased the other lot which contained tow. ‘The issue here is thatthe parties had formed an cbjectve agreement for that specifi lot, and there was no mutual mistake, However, 35. the mistake was caused by the auctioneers actions of not distinguishing the two lots, the courts ignored this fact and the contract was void for mistake. The key fact is thatthe defendant had no duty to examine the diferent ats, but the auctioneer di ‘The doctrine of fault is also evident in Smith v Hughes, twas the fault ofthe buyer that they dd not expressly indicate that oll este were required Ifthe seller was avare of this, the caze would have been decided diferent. Therefore, the doctrine of fault can wark for ‘or against ether party inthe contrac it isnot always the buyer or always the seller. Unilateral mistake ‘This form of mistake applies when only one ofthe partis to the contract is mistaken as to part ofthe cantract. Unilateral mistake is limited, but will usually operate in cicumstances where one party is mistaken as to part of the contract and the ather party is aware of ‘this fact and takes acvantages of Unilateral mistake as to the terms of the contract ‘The three requirements that will ender a contract void for unilateral mistake in relation tothe tems ofa contract are: 1.One partys mistaken as to a term ofthe contact and would not have entered the contact but for this mistake 2. The mistake is known or reasonably ought to be known tothe other party 2. The mistaken party is not at fault Requirement one i arly straightforward, the courts wl consider whether, ifthe mistaken party had known the real uth a to thelr mistake they stil would have entered into the contract. they would have, this cannot amount to an actionable claim for mistake.(Case in Focus: Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall com Pte Ltd [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502 In this case, Diglancmall com Pte Ltd were selling HP laser printers online. They owned two separate websites. On both ofthe sites the printer was priced at aver $3000. A technical mistake was made by an employee and it was then priced at only $66 on both websites. ‘Chwee kin Keong discovered the mistake and purchased large amount ofthese printers. The website refused ta sll ana Chwiee Kin Keong commenced an action for damages, teas held thatthe contract ws void for mistake. This was because the defendant had constructive knowledge ofthe mistake, This was lear because they purchased a large amount, knowing a mistake as tothe price had been made. This means the party benefitting from the mistake cannot simaly claim ignorance to 2 mistake, under many crcumstances it should be ‘obvious thats mistake has been made ifthe deals too good to be tv. ‘The third requirement is fairly straightforward and cbvious ands given its tral meaning; ifthe mistake made is unreasonable they would be considered tobe at fault. ‘This type of mistake seems fairly straightforward to prove on a cursory examination, but the requirements have proven fairly dificult to mest. In Hartog Colin and Shield [1929] 3 All ER S66 a contract was formes for 3 certain type of hare skin, The seller had prcadit ata price one-third the custom pric. Similar tothe previous case examined, the defendant had taken advantage ofthe mistake that they ‘ithar were aware of or should have been aware of Unilateral mistake as to identity ‘The most common form of unilateral mistake that i actually actionable is where there has been a mistake of identity. Take the following wample: Party A sells some goods to Party B.Party Ais mistaken as tothe identity of Party B, who is in actual facta fraud. Party A transfers property of the goods to Paty 8 before receiving anything in tur, Party 8 then sells the goods on to Pay C, and Party 8 disappears ‘To understand the significance ofa chim for mistake as to entity, the result ofa chim under fraudulent misrepresentation inthis ‘example should be examined. As you wll know, the two remedies for misrepresentation are damages and rescission In the case of “damages, as Party 8 has disappeared, Party A will have nobody to dtect the chim for damages to, and will have no chance of recovering “anything, As for rescission, a Paty 8 passed property to the goods to Party C, who were unaware of the misrepresentation there wil be | bar to rescission inthe form of thi party rights, As you cn see, Fraudulent misrepresentatin is nota ideal claim to bring where the statement maker cannot be traced, ‘A csim for unilateral mistake ato identity provides a remedy in this situation. Due to the mistake, the contact is void atthe time of, creation, therefor, Party B would never have ttle inthe goods, and therefore could never pass ttle to arty C This means that Paty A has one of two remedies; they may recover the goods from Paty C, or sue Party C under the tort of conversion. Unfortunately, there is clear issue here, Party A and Party Care both innacent, yet one wil be subject to an uneauitable result, Lord Denning in Lewis v Averay 1972] 1 QB 198 suggested in the event of mistake 36 to identity, the contract should be void, not voidable. ‘This would protec the til pary, as Lord Denning suggested they ave generally the most innocent party and the one in need of protection. This approsch was rejected by he other judges and instead the courts outlined circumstances in which 9 mistake to identity would be actionable Lewis v Averay - What is a mistake as to identity? ‘The decision in Lewis v Averay made a cstnction between "rue mistakes as to identity’ and mistakes a5 to attributes. Mistake a5 tothe ateibutes ofa party is nat sufcient for an actionable claim of mistake, fr example, the creditworthiness ofa pary. The mistake must be 25 to the actual identity of the party [An example ofthis canbe found in Kings Norton Mtl Cov Eéridoe Meret Co (1897) 14 TLR 98, where a fraudulent party pretended to_be a business, but in realty the business they chimes to be didnot exist. The contract wa forthe sale of goods, and the fraudulent pary disappeared once he had received the goods. The aggrieved party claimed thatthe contact was void for mistake a to identity. ‘The court ruled that in this case, the innocent party was not concemed with the identity ofthe party they only had an interest in the creditworthiness of the fraudulent party. In other words, the innocent party was mistaken a5 to an atibute (creditworthiness) oF the ‘fraudulent party, not ther identity, meaning the claim failed, Interestingly, in respect of mistake as ta identity, the courts have diferantisted between contract that are made face-to-face, and ttnMistake as to identity in written contracts ‘The cours will presume that when a contracts in written form the parties only intend to contract with the partes named inthe contract ‘Therefore if the contract turns out to be with anyone other than the individuals named in the contrac, it will be void fo mistake. Cundy Lindsay (1877) App Cas 459 is authority to ths effect. Face-to-face contracts ‘The law on mistake ast identity is stil confusing. The curent authority is the House of Lord decision in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHI 62, however, an examination of he prior law will help you understand this decision and analyse the judicial reasoning ‘The case of Philip v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 KB 243 was authority decision to contract. In that case, a fraudulent party went into a jewellery shop, claiming to be ‘Sir George BullougN, and wrote out a hat ruled the general presumption is that identty is at crucial ta the idantity as the seller intends to contract with the person in the shop. The judgement ofthat person's creditworthiness had persuaded ‘the seller to allow the sale on credit terms, not his identity ‘The recognised exception ta tis rule ie where an innocent party intends to contract witha company, and the indvidval they contract Uwth holds themselves out tobe an agent af that company, but in realty has no authority to act - Hardman v Booth(1@63) 1H 8 C 803 ‘The case of Ingram v Little [1961] 1 Q8 31 was based upon similar facts to Philips v Brooks id yet the judgment was diferent. In Ingram ¥ Lite, wo sisters were seling a car. A fraudulent party claimed they were someone named Hutchinson The sisters would not accept the cheque at fist, but after checking his name, initials and address against his telephone number they accepted the cheque. When the ‘fraudulent party did net pay the sisters, they claimed for mistake as to identity, which was allowed ‘This decison does not seem reconcilable wth Philips v Brooks Ltd. In both circumstances it would appear the sller was only intrested in the creditworthiness ofthe buyer. The checks 25 tothe identity ofthe buyer were similar in that there were minimal efforts, which would suggest was not the identity ofthe party they were interested in, only the creditworthiness, Itis suggested thatthe courts approach in Ingram v Lite was an analysis of the offer and acceptance principles. The sisters presented an offer which was only acceptable by Hutchinson, therefare, asthe fraudulent party was nat Hutchinson, he could not accept contract, making it void. There i stil itfculty here as tis clear the fundamental issue was not his identity, it was his creditworthiness. It has been suggested thatthe courts were more lenient in Ingram v Little due tothe sisters being elderly women, who were protected for policy reasons. (Overall itis clear that the law on mistaken identity in face-to done lite to help that! ce contracts was unclear Unfortunately, Shogun Finance v Hudson has The decision in Shogun Finance v Hudson Case in Focus: Shogun Finance v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 Im Shogun a fraud (A) visited a motor dealer (8) and expressed an interest in purchasing a particular car. During negotiations the fraud used a stolen driving license as proof of his identity, name and address. The dealer was happy with this and they both agreed on a price {forthe car. The finance company (C), Shogun Finance, were contacted and they agreed to finance te hire purchase of the ca. The document signed for the finance agreement used the stolen diving licenses identity, but the fraud signed himself witha forged signature. The finance company carried out the required credit checks a finance. The fraud then took the car and sold tan to an innocent identity of the stolen driving licence and approved the itd party (D), subsequently cisappearing. Iwas decided thatthe contract was void for mistake as to identity. Due to the forged contrac, the finance company believed they were entering into a contract with the owner ofthe stolen driven license, whereas in reality it was with the fraud ‘The case was decided on 23 to 2 majority tothe effect thatthe innocent third party, Party D, was not protected. There was vaying opinions of the judges as othe judicial reasoning behind this decsion Lord Hobhouse, ofthe majority, used 2 construction of the document Party C signed. Party C contracted withthe real owner of the stolen identity, and as the document was signed witha forged signature on constuction of the rules of offer and acceptance, the contract was void for mistake as the fmance company only intended to deal with the real owner ofthe stolen identity. Tis was of fundamental importance to the contract a they had run credit checks onthe indivi, Lord Walker and Philips also ofthe majrty, followed Lord Hobhouse's arguments with regards to the written contract being the key factor. They also Used rules of offer and acceptance, smilie tothe approach in Ingram v Lite, However, they algo maintained the presumption that identity fs not usualy materi in face-to-face contracts Lotd Nicholls and Millett who ware the cissenting judges supported the view of Lord Denning, thatthe thtd party shouldbe protected. This quotation sums their argument up nicely “Its surely fairer thatthe party who was actualy swindled and who had an opportunity to uncover the fraud should bear the loss rather than a party who entered the picture only after the swindle had been carried outThe two judges argued there should be no distinction made between parties identified in writen documents and parties identified face- to-face, They argued if he finance company was present in the room to check the details (making the contact face-to-face) the result ofthe circumstances would be no diferent. Therefor, the argued tht fraud as to identity should render the contract voile, which protects the innocent third party ‘Analysis ofthe decision in Shogun Finance v Hudson Essentially the decision made was thatthe contract was between the finance company and the person named in the wrkten document. [As the signature was forged, ths person had infact not entered into the contract, someone else had (Party A, and therefore the ‘contract was void for mistake a to identity. ‘Therefore, the distinction between written contracts and face to face contracts inthe context of mistake as to identity sll remains. The fact the Shogun Finance v Hudson decision was made on an extremely close 3 to 2 majority suggests that it remains an uncertain area of law Unfortunuataly, for now this decision ofthe House of Lord will remain binding ané should be used as authority for the difference between face-to-face and written contracts, despite the questionable approach, To summarise the arguments against the difference, there seems to be litle logic in lstinguishing between the two approaches. seems in most situations the fact thatthe contract is made face-to-face or via writen correspondence daes not have an impact onthe outcome ofthe contrac. Documents signed by mistake [A party may be released from a contract where they can prove that they have signed the document by mistake. Ths arises where they sign a contractual document which i fundamentally different to the contract they believe it to be Saunders v Anglia Building Sacity(1971] AC 1004 i authority fortis form of mistake. It should be note thatthe party signing the “document must not be careless when signing the document. In Saunders v Anglia Bulalng Society the paty dd not read the document before signing it this vas held to amount to carelessness, meaning their chim for mistake was not valid Share this: Cite This Module To export a reference to this article please select a referencing syle below. APA MIA MIA‘T Harvard YancowwerWikinedin QSCOLA “Teacher, Law (November 2018), Mistake in Contact Law, Revieved (Yom hitos/fauwteacher nel factors/mistake/2vtet=1 es/contract-awhitiating- Contract Law Lecture Inveduction > Fomation ¥ ity of Contract Construction » Vitiaing Factors « ‘Misrepresentation > Mistake > Duress. > ality. > Discharge of Obligations « Remedies » More Law Resources Free law resources to assist you wth your LB or SQE studies! | Law Study Resources > Other Law Lectures ‘Seminal Law > 718land Law > PublicLaw > Tetlaw> F Lectures 7 Contract Law / V actors # Mistake Place an Order Today! services Law Essay Wrting Service ing Service All Law Servi Info for UK Students Fair Use Policy Complaint rmwtsie Place an Order Law Essays Case Summaries Act Summaries Problem Question: rayvacyprowin §COINDASE