Ô
 


 


    

Submitted To: Mr. K.K.Dwivedi

(Faculty for Law of Contracts)

Submitted By:Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi

Roll No. 374
Semester II, 1st Year.
c
Page
 
Ô

The present project on the ©

 has been able to get its final shape
with the support and help of people from various quarters. My sincere thanks go to all
the members without whom the study could not have come to its present state. I am
proud to acknowledge gratitude to the individuals during my study and without whom
the study may not be completed. I have taken this opportunity to thank those who
genuinely helped me.

With immense pleasure, I express my deepest sense of gratitude to Mr. K.K. Dwivedi,
Faculty for Law of Contracts, Chanakya National Law University for helping me in
my project. I am also thankful to the whole Chanakya National Law University family
that provided me all the material I required for the project. I would also like to thank
my parents without whose blessings the completion of this project was not possible.

I have made every effort to acknowledge credits, but I apologies in advance for any
omission that may have inadvertently taken place.

Last but not least I would like to thank Almighty whose blessing helped me to
complete the project.


Page
  
m m
 
 
m m  
  
 
    
  
   
      

 !    ! 
 "m# m        
 $    
    %

&  '  
 
 
& (   )   
$ !!    
#

 '( 

 *  +(
 
 


   %
*' ,*-*












Ñ
Page
  

‘ a

 


o‘?
 



o‘M? 
 


o‘©
 



‘ ` ©
 

‘ ©
 
 ?    



‘ ©
 


 

 

 





‘ Ô

  


‘ ?
   

‘ Œ! " 

ÿ
Page

o‘ 
    Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (herein to be
referred as the Act) defines the term contract "   
(  !".
Section 2(e) defines agreement as "  
 .

 (   
  ( ". Again Section 2(b) defines promise in these
words: /!      !          
    .
           ((      ! ((. (    / 
Section 2(j) defines void contract as "  (  ( !( (     
(  
 !(  !(  
( ".
To start with, the Oxford Dictionary defines the word ³ as a written or
spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales or tenancy, that is
intended to be enforceable by law. It is also a branch of law concerned with the
making and observation of contracts.
A Proposal and its Acceptance is the universally acknowledged process for the
making of an agreement. The proposal is the starting point. It the proposal which is
when accepted results in promise. The promise when combines with consideration
forms agreement and the agreements which are enforceable in law are contracts1.
Proposal + Acceptance = Promise
Promise + Consideration = Agreement
Agreement + Enforceability in law = Contract
Proposal is defined under section 2(a) of the Indian contract Act, 1872 as "! 
  
      !         
    
! !    
   ( (  (. 
      0

". Thus, for a valid offer, the party making it must express his
willingness to do or not to do something. But mere expression of willingness does not
constitute an offer. An offer should be made to obtain the assent of the other.
The essentials of a contract are that there must be an agreement, free consent,
competent parties, lawful object and consideration as per section 10 of the Act2.
In law, a  is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law or
by binding arbitration. That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises with a
1
³Law of Contracts by Avtar Singh
2
See Section 10 of the Act

*
Page
specific remedy for breach. Agreement is said to be reached when an offer capable of
immediate acceptance is met with a "mirror image" acceptance (i.e., an unqualified
acceptance). The parties must have the necessary capacity to contract and the contract
must not be trifling    !"#  ##$#. Contract law is based on
the principle expressed in the Latin phrase  (     (usually translated
"pact must be kept", but more literally "agreements are to be kept"). Breach of
contract is recognized by the law and remedies can be provided.
As long as the good or service provided is legal, any oral agreement between two
parties can constitute a binding legal contract. The practical limitation to this,
however, is that only parties to a written agreement have material evidence (the
written contract itself) to prove the actual terms uttered at the time the agreement was
struck. In daily life, most contracts can be and are made orally, such as purchasing a
book or a sandwich. Sometimes written contracts are required by either the parties, or
by statutory law within various jurisdictions for certain types of agreement, for
example when buying a house or land3.
Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a
general law of obligations (along with tort, unjust enrichment or restitution).
According to legal scholar Sir John William Salmond, a contract is " $ 
$  %$  "#$ "& &   !".

3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

†
Page
 
According to Section 10 free consent is an essential requirement of a contract. 
cÑ of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines ³consent. It states ³Two or more persons
are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.
For a valid contract both the parties should have given their consent and the consent
should also be free. ³!          
.      (        ! .   
(


 .   (   
((   (  (!(( 
(.
 cÿ of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines ³free consent. It states ³Consent
is said to be free when it is not caused by ±
(1)coercion, as defined in section15, or
(2)undue influence, as defined in section 16, or
(3)fraud, as defined in section 17, or
(4)misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or
(5)mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21 and 22.
Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the
existence of such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake
An agreement upon the same thing in the same sense is known as true consent or





 , and it is the root of every contract.
As stated by Lord Hannen ³       (  
  (  (    
       
!   
   (  ( ( (   (     .      
 (
.  
 . 

  . 

(  (! 1!.

è
Page
 o‘   
For an agreement to be enforceable by law, it needs to fulfil certain essentials. 
c' of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states ³What agreements are contracts. It states
as follows ³m   (  (       
 ( 

 (  (  (.
 !
(    !  !
 "(. 
 1(   .
According to Section 10 of the Act ³free consent is an important essential of a
contract. Meaning thereby, the parties to the agreement must have agreed to the terms
of the agreement freely, then the agreement can be said to be a contract.
As per  cÿ of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ³ ( )"*  !+
%  ' c    affects the ³free consent of the parties to contract.
Consent is said to be so caused when it would have been given but for the existence of
such coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
An agreement to be a contract, there needs to be 



or meetings of minds of
the parties to agreement and mistake prevents in happening so.
Mistake may operate upon the contract in two ways. It may, firstly, defeat the consent
altogether that the parties are supposed to have given, that is to say, the consent is
unreal. Secondly, the mistake may mislead the parties as to the purpose which they
contemplated.
In contract law a ( is an erroneous belief, (  (, that certain facts are
true. It may be used as grounds to invalidate the agreement. Common law has
identified two different types of mistake in contract: "unilateral mistake" and "mutual
mistake," sometimes called "common mistake."
A )## ( is where only one party to a contract is mistaken as to the terms
or subject-matter contained in a contract. This kind of mistake is more common than
other types of mistake4.
A ))# ( occurs when the parties to a contract are both mistaken about the
same    fact within their contract. They are at cross-purposes. There is a
meeting of the minds, but the parties are mistaken. Hence the contract is voidable.
A   ( is where both parties hold the same mistaken belief of the facts.
When the consent of the parties to the contract is caused by mistake, it is not free
consent which is needed for the validity of a contract. One, or both, of the parties may

4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)


Page
be working under some misunderstanding or misapprehension of some fact relating to
the agreement. If such a misunderstanding or misapprehension had not been there,
probably they would not have entered into the agreement. Such contracts are said to
have been caused by mistake. Mistake may work in two ways:-
# ‘ Mistake in the mind of the parties is such that there is no genuine
agreement at all. There may be no (   , i.e., the meeting of
the two minds, i.e, there may be absence of ³consent as defined in Section
13. The offer and acceptance do not coincide and thus no genuine
agreement is constituted between the parties. 
# ‘ There may be a genuine agreement, but there may be mistake as to a
matter of fact relating to that agreement5. 
When the free consent of the parties to the contract is vitiated by ³mistake it results
in declaring the contract as void.
Section 20 of the Act states, ³m !     
    

( 2'              

(
   .  .
An erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing which forms the subject matter of
the agreement, is not to be deemed a mistake as to a matter of fact.
Illustrations:-
A)‘ A agrees to sell to B a specific cargo of goods supposed to be on its way from
England to Bombay. It turns out that, before the day of the bargain, the ship
conveying the cargo had been cast away, and the goods lost. Neither party was
aware of these facts. The agreement is void.
B)‘ A agrees to buy from B a certain horse. It turns out that the horse was dead at
the time of the bargain, though neither party was aware of the fact. The
agreement is void.
C)‘ A, being entitled to an estate for the life of B, agrees to sell it to C. B was dead
at the time of the agreement, but both parties were ignorant of the fact. The
agreement is void.

Section 20 will come into play:

a$‘ When both the parties to an agreement are mistaken;

5
³Contract-1 by R.K.Bangia

´
Page
 aa$‘ Their mistake is as to a matter of fact, and
aaa$‘ The fact about which they are mistaken is essential to the agreement.

Section 21 of the Act states, ³2

(
    !2m(  (   
( ! (       !
( 3    
 ! 
(   

(   


(.
Illustrations:
A and B make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is
barred by the Indian Law of Limitation; the contract is not voidable.
Section 22 states ³  ( (    
        

(2m
(  (   ( ! (  
  
     

(.

















c'
P a g e
   Ô
‘

‘‘


‘
The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has
made extensive use of the library at the Chanakya National Law University and also
the internet sources.
‘
 ‘ ‘
 
‘
The aim of the project is to present a detailed study of the ³Mistake and Contract.


‘ ‘    ‘

The project deals with the discussion on the topic of ³Mistake and Contract and the
relation between the two with the help of case laws.



‘‘  ‘
The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-
1.‘ Books
2.‘ Websites

‘‘
 ‘
The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is
primarily analytical.
‘

‘‘   ‘
The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this
research paper.

cc
P a g e
  
     
For a valid contract both the parties should have given their consent and the consent
should also be free. !          
.      (        ! .   
(


 .   (   
((   (  (!(( 
(.
In `
  
6, the buyer and the seller entered into an agreement under
which the seller was to supply a cargo of cotton to arrive ³ex Peerless from Bombay.
There were two ships of the same name, i.e., Peerless and both were to sail from
Bombay, one in October and the other in December. The buyer had in mind Peerless
sailing in October, whereas the seller thought of the ship sailing in December. The
seller despatched cotton by December ship but the buyer refused to accept the same.
In this case, the offer and acceptance did not coincide and there was no contract and,
therefore, it was held that the buyer was entitled to refuse to take delivery.
In 
     7, the parties to the agreement for the sale of
land were not   with respect to the unit of measuring land, the case was held to
have been covered by Section 20, making the agreement void.
In this case the seller intended to sell land in terms of ³kanals, whereas the buyer
intended to purchase it in terms of ³bighas. It was held to be mistake relating to a
matter essential to the agreement. The agreement was, therefore, held to be void.
When there is fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the
document but as to its character, and the mind of the signer did not accompany the
signatures, i.e., when the signer did not intend to sign a particular document, it is a
totally void transaction8 .
This may be explained by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in À  
À   ´. The plaintiff, an illiterate woman, wanted to execute a gift
deed in favour of her daughter. Her thumb impression was fraudulently obtained on
two documents, one being gift deed ain favour of her daughter and the other on a sale
deed in respect of her other property in favour of the defendant, who were her
daughter¶s husband and his brothers. While putting the thumb impressions, she

6
(1864) 2 H & C. ´06
7
A.I.R. 1´´8 S.C. 1400
8
$ !!    , A.I.R. 1´80 S.C. ´56
´
A.I.R. 1´´0 S.C. 1173

c
P a g e
honestly believed that she was executing a single document, i.e, a gift deed in favour
of her daughter. It was held that the sale deed executed by her was totally void,
because, ³The plaintiff-appellant never intended to sign what she did sign. She never
intended to enter into the contract to which she unknowingly became a party. Her
mind did not accompany her thumb impressions...and it was therefore, a totally void
transaction.






















cÑ
P a g e
       Ô
 
Section 20 deals with such mistake. It states that Section 20 of the Act states,
³m !       

( 2'
       

(   .
 .
An erroneous opinion as to the value of the thing which forms the subject matter of
the agreement, is not to be deemed a mistake as to a matter of fact.
Illustrations:-
a)‘ A agrees to sell to B a specific cargo of goods supposed to be on its way from
England to Bombay. It turns out that, before the day of the bargain, the ship
conveying the cargo had been cast away, and the goods lost. Neither party was
aware of these facts. The agreement is void.
b)‘ A agrees to buy from B a certain horse. It turns out that the horse was dead at
the time of the bargain, though neither party was aware of the fact. The
agreement is void.
c)‘ A, being entitled to an estate for the life of B, agrees to sell it to C. B was dead
at the time of the agreement, but both parties were ignorant of the fact. The
agreement is void.
When the type of mistake contemplated in Section 20 is present in an agreement, the
agreement is void. Section 20 requires that:
c, -  !    )# " )  (.Section 20
makes the agreement void if there is mistake on the part of both the parties. For
example, A and B make an agreement for the sale and purchase of a particular horse.
Unknown to both the parties, the horse was dead at the time of the agreement. Since
both the parties are under a mistake, the agreement is void. If the mistake is a
unilateral one, i.e., only one of the parties is having some mis-impression, the validity
of the agreement is not affected thereby. This is made clear by Section 22, which
reads as:- ³m (  (        (   !  (   
 
       

( 

cÿ
P a g e
In m m 

  10, there was an auction for the sale
of fishery rights and the plaintiff was the highest bidder making bid of Rs.40, 000.
The fishery rights had been auctioned for 3 years. The rent, in fact, was Rs.40, 000
per year. The plaintiff sought to avoid the contract on the ground that he was working
under a mistake and he thought that he had made a bid of Rs.40, 000, being the rent
for all the three years. It was held that since the mistake was unilateral, the contract
was not affected thereby and the same could not be avoided.
In   m
  ` m   

   
   


,11also, the validity of the contract was not affected as the mistake in this case was
only a unilateral one. A chartered a steamer from B which, according to the
agreement, was to sail from Jedda on ³10th August, 18´2 (15 days after the Haj). The
object of A was to convey Haj pilgrims from Jedda from Bombay through this
steamer. B had no idea about the date of Haj and for him the date contracted was 10th
August. In this case, A was working under a mistake in so far as the 15th day after the
Haj happened to be 1´th July, 18´2 and not 10 th August, 18´2. A sued B for
rectification of the charter party on the ground of mistake. It was held that there was
only a unilateral mistake on A¶s part only and, therefore, there could be no
rectification of the instrument.
, ( )# "  $   % %-There should be mistake of fact
and not of law. The validity of the contract is not affected by mistake of law.
Regarding mistake of law the provision contained in Section 21 is as follows:-³m
(  (   ( ! (       !
(
 3      !
(   

(   



(.
Illustration:-
A and B make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is
barred by the Indian Law of Limitation; the contract is not voidable.
Everyone is supposed to know the law of the land. Ignorance of law is no excuse. If a
person wants to avoid the contract on the ground that there was a mistaken impression
in his mind as to the existence of some law while he entered into the contract, he will
get no relief. For instance, A owes B Rs.1, 000/-. Both A and B mistakenly think that

10
A.I.R. 1´70 Manipur 16
11
(18´2) 16 Bom. 561

c*
P a g e
the debt is time barred and agree that A may pay only Rs.500/- to clear debt. It is a
mistake of law and the contract to pay Rs.500/- is valid.
Ñ,  % $$ &  (   )# " #  
$ -It is also necessary that the fact regarding which the mistake is made
should be essential to the agreement. Whether the mistake is regarding a fact essential
to the agreement or not depends on a particular contract. The effect of mistake in
various situations is being discussed below:-
, Mistake as to the existence of the subject-matter-If both the parties to a
contract believe in the existence of the subject-matter, which in fact does not exist, the
agreement would be void. The reason is that if the subject-matter of the contract has
already perished, there is nothing regarding which the contract is being made. For
example, in a contract for the sale of specific cargo, if the ship carrying the same has
been cast away and the goods lost12, or the sale is of a specific horse, which has
already died13 the agreement is void, if neither of the parties was aware of the actual
facts.
In
  
 14, there was a contract for the sale of cargo of corn supposed
to be in transit from Salonica to the United Kingdom. Unknown to the parties to the
contract, the corn had become fermented and then disposed of by the master of the
ship at Tunis, before the above stated contract of its sale was made. It was held that
the agreement was void because of mutual mistake as to the existence of the subject-
matter and, therefore, the buyer was not bound to pay its price.
15
In 
!  
! , a man and a woman executed a separation deed, both of
them working under a common mistaken impression that they were married to each
other. Since the fact of marriage was no-existent, the deed was held void.
, Mistake as to the possibility of performance of the contract-It has already been
noticed that if contrary to the belief of the parties the subject-matter of the contract is
not in existence, the agreement is void. If, for example, there is a contract for the sale
of a horse, which has already died, the agreement is void. One of the reasons for such
an agreement being void is that it is not possible to deliver and transfer a thing which
is not in existence.

12
Illustration (a) to Section 20
13
Illustration (b) to Section 20
14
(1856) 5 H.L.C. 673
15
(1´14) 30 T.L.R. 531

c†
P a g e
Similar is the position when the performance of the contract is not legally possible.
For instance, A agrees to take a lease of a fishery from B. If it turns out that A is
himself already the tenant for life, and B has no interest which could be transferred to
A, it is not legally possible for B to perform this contract. The agreement having been
entered into under a mistake, is void16.
If, by mistake, the parties incorporate such terms in their contract that the
performance of those terms is not physically possible, the agreement would be void.
In  

"#
17, A contracted with B to grant him a licence to
cut, process and manufacture sisal growing on A¶s land. B agreed that he would
process sisal and deliver to A, minimum 50 tons of sisal fibre, manufactured by him,
every month. It was found that the leaf potential of the land was insufficient for
fulfilling contractual requirement, i.e., producing 50 tons of sisal fibre per month. As
such, the performance of promise by B was physically impossible. The Privy Council
decided the case on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 20, Indian
Contract Act and held that the agreement was void because of mutual mistake.
, Mistake as to title-Sometimes the parties may be labouring under a mutual
mistake as to the title to the goods sold. The buyer may already be the owner of what
the seller purports to sell. In fact, there is nothing which the seller has to transfer. The
transfer of ownership is intended but the same is impossible as the buyer is already
the owner. Such an agreement is void due to mutual mistake. The position in this case
is similar to the one where the subject-matter, unknown to the parties, is not in
existence.
In

$


18, A agreed to take a lease of a fishery from B. Unknown to both
the parties, A was already tenant for life of the fishery rights and B had no title to the
same. The agreement was set aside on the ground of common mistake.
, Mistake as to promise-If there is a mistake because of which the promise does
not reflect the real intention which was there in the proposed agreement, such an
agreement would be void. In 
 
 
% 
1´, there was a contract for
the sale of 30,000 pieces of Argentina hare-skins. Negotiations as to price were on
³per piece basis, and that was in accordance with the usual trade practice. The sellers
by mistake in the offer stipulated to supply at a certain rate ³per pound instead of

16
  , (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 14´
17
(1´57) A.C. 136
18
(1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 14´
1´
(1´3´) 3 All E.R. 566

cè
P a g e
³per piece. A pound on an average contained three pieces of such skins. The buyers
sued the sellers for the non-delivery of goods. It was held that there had arisen no
contract in this case, because the buyer could have noticed the mistake by the sellers
contained in their offer, and because of their mistake, the seller¶s intention was not
properly reflected in the offer.
, Mistake as to identity of the parties-If I intend to enter into contract with A for
the purchase of goods from him and I place the order accordingly, B cannot accept
this offer, and if B supplies me the goods, I have no obligation to pay to him because I
never wanted to make any contract with him.
In 

  

20, Jones who used to have business dealings with Brocklehurst,
sent an order to Brocklehurst for the purchase of certain goods. By the time this order
reached, Brocklehurst had sold his business to Boulton. Boulton supplied the goods to
Jones, for which the order had actually been placed with Brocklehurst. Jones refused
to pay price of the goods to Boulton on the ground that he has never placed an order
with Boulton and had never intended to make a contract with him. Under these
circumstances it was held that Jones had never made any contract with Boulton and he
was not bound to pay for the goods.

20
(1857) 2 H. & N. 564

c
P a g e
Ô  
Mistake operates to avoid an agreement subject to the following limitations:-
c/ ( % " !
Under Section 20 an agreement is void by reason of mistake when both parties are
mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement. This is further supplemented
by the declaration in Section 22 that ³a contract is not voidable merely because it was
caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to matter of fact. Thus,
where the government sold by auction the right of fishery and the plaintiff offered the
highest bid under the impression that the right was sold for three years, when in fact it
was for one year only, he could not avoid the agreement because it was his unilateral
mistake.21 As to what is the nature of a unilateral mistake as provided under Section
22 of the Contract Act, would be best explained by the case of  m
 `
m   

   
   

.22 There the plaintiffs
chartered a steamer which was to sail from Jedda on ³10th August, 18´2 (fifteen days
after the Haj). The plaintiffs believed that ³10th August, 18´2 corresponded with the
fifteenth day after the Haj. The defendant had no such belief and contracted only with
respect to the English date, viz., ³10th August, 18´2. The plaintiff¶s subsequently
discovered that their belief was mistaken as much as fifteen days after Haj fell on a
different day and on the basis of that they sued the defendants of rectification of the
charter party. The court held that it was a unilateral mistake and the plaintiffs were
not entitled to any relief. Similarly, where a tenderer, in calculating the price which he
wanted to charge, happened, by mistake, to insert wrong figures, and the authority
accepted the tender without knowing the mistake, no rectification was allowed.23 It
should, however, be borne in mind that where the mistake, even if it of one party only,
has the effect of nullifying consent as defined in Section 13, no contract will arise.
There is no real consent where mistake prevents the parties from coming to an
agreement upon the same thing in the same sense. For an agreement to be avoided on
the basis of unilateral mistake, it must be shown: first, that one party erroneously
believed that the document sought to be rectified contained a particular term or
provision, or possibly did not contain; second, that the other party was aware of the
omission or the inclusion and that it was due to a mistake omitted to draw the mistake

21
m m
 
 , AIR 1´70 Mani 16.
22
(18´2) 16 Bom 561
23
' *$     (1´27) 136 LT 235

c´
P a g e
to the notice of the other party and there must be a fourth element involved, namely,
that the mistake must be one calculated to benefit one party. Applying these principles
to the facts of the case in   - 0   + 1 2$,  24
the court came to the conclusion that where a lease deed contained arbitration clause
but the new deed which was prepared by the landlord did not contain that provision
without the knowledge of the landlord and though the lessee was aware of the
omission he did not draw it to the attention of the landlord, the landlord was entitled
to seek rectification of the document for inserting arbitration clause.
The mistake of both parties of which Section 20 speaks may be either common or
mutual. The classification of mistakes in terms of ³common, ³mutual and
³unilateral is adopted by Cheshire and Fifoot, The Law OF Contract. The expression
³common mistake is thus explained in this learned work:
³In common mistake both parties make the same mistake. Each knows the intention of
the other and accepts, but each is mistaken about some underlying and fundamental
fact. The parties, for example, are unaware that the subject matter of their contract has
already perished.25
Common mistake will definitely render the agreement void if the parties are mistaken
about the existence of the subject matter.
In mutual mistake, the parties misunderstand each other and are at cross-purposes. A,
for example, intends to offer his Ford Cortina car for sale, but B believes that the offer
relates to the Ford Zephyr also owned by A.
/) !
The explanation to Section 20 provides that ³an erroneous opinion as to the value of
the thing which forms the subject-matter of the agreement is not to be deemed a
mistake as to a matter of fact. In a case before the Cochin High Court, a property
which was subject to a subsisting lease was sold. The lessee had the right to receive
value of the improvements, but the agreement of sale was silent about this. The buyer
wanted to have agreement set aside on the ground of mistake about this right. But the
court held ³that there was no mistake and that even if there was a mistake it was not
as to matter of fact essential to the agreement for sale. It could only be an erroneous

24
(1´81) 1 All ER 1011 CA
25
The Law OF Contract, 202 (8 th Edn, 1´72)

'
P a g e
opinion which the parties had formed as to the real value of the subject-matter and
would not be deemed to be a mistake vitiating the agreement26.
Ñ/ ( % %   % #&
Mistake should be of fact and not of law, for section 21 declares that ³a contract is not
voidable because it is caused by a mistake as to any law in force in India. The
Section carries an illustration:
A and B make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt is
barred by the Indian Law of Limitation; the contract is not voidable.
A mistake as to effect of registration upon the validity of a document has been
registered by the Supreme Court as a mistake of law27. But a mistake as to a foreign
law will avoid.












26
& (   )   
27
&  '  
 
 , 1´54 SCR ´58

c
P a g e
Ô 
I would like to thank my professor for providing me with this topic for project to work
on. It is so because I while working on this project topic became acquainted with
various facts and developed a clear understanding of topics like mistake and relation
of mistake in contract. After the detailed study of the project and research work I was
able to understand the importance played by mistake in affecting the validity of any
contract.
Contract being an agreement enforceable in law has certain important essentials. One
of them being, free consent of the parties. Mistake, is one of the factors which affect
the ³free consent of the parties to contract. Any contract in which the consent of the
parties has been vitiated by mistake, then that contract stands void.
Thus ³mistake forms an important element in contract and has great applicability in
day to day working.
With the help of this project I got clear concept about various types of mistake in the
law of contracts and the limitations thereby where the contract cannot be declared to
void.
It was a nice and knowledgeable experience.










P a g e
ŒŒÔ 
Œ‘



‘

‘ Bangia, R.K. ³  (2: Allahabad Law Agency, Haryana, 200´.

‘ Singh, Avtar. ³Law of Contract and Specific Relief: Eastern Book Company,
New Delhi, 2008.

‘ Kapoor, Dr.S.K. ³Law of Contracts-I: Central Law Agency, New Delhi,

2007.

a


‘

‘

‘ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
‘ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)‘

Ñ
P a g e