FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 907 times | Saved to 322 briefcases
Hobbs v Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Co. (1889), 29 SCR 450


K for purchase of land. Receipt said land without reservation. D says that T(who sold land) didn’t convey minerals


Due to the alleged mistake, was there a contract at all?


Mistake by one party will not suffice to invalidate a K – reasonableness or carelessness doesn’t affect the K


When both parties to a contract are mistaken as to an essential element of the contract, the Court will attempt to find a reasonable interpretation from the context of the agreement before it will void it.

Test: regarding if K is void by mistake, objective - What would a reasonable person in Hobbs’ position think the terms mean? (parties’ own understanding and intention irrelevant).

The parties knew the terms of the contract, it was expressed in unambiguous language


The alleged mistake was unreasonable and careless – it cannot be said to be unconscionable to enforce specific performance

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.