FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 979 times | Saved to 333 briefcases
Hobbs v Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Co. (1889), 29 SCR 450

Facts:

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

Issue(s):

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

Ratio:

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

Analysis:

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

Holding:

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.