What Will Be The Effect Of Mistake As To Law In Force In India On The Agreement

The Maxim Ignorantia Facti Excusat, which means ignorance of the fact excused. Therefore, a contract under section 20 of the Indian Contracts Act of 1872 is deemed invalid if both parties to the agreement have erred. Section 72 allows for the reimbursement of funds paid in the event of an error, including an error of law. However, if a contract is the result of an error of law by both parties, any amount of money paid under the contract is less than 21 and not 72. In the Dhanya Lakshmi Rice Mills/Commissioner of Civil Supplies case [11], the petitioner had paid money to the government as administrative costs for obtaining the authorizations, which he requested reimbursement in accordance with S 72 of the Contracts Act. While refusing discharge, the Supreme Court stated: “If one party under one jurisdiction pays an error of law to another for money that is not owed by contract or otherwise, it must be paid. If there is a clear and unequivocal rule of law that gives a party the right of appeal it claims, it is not possible to introduce just considerations. A contract entered into under an error of law by both parties falls under 21, not 72. If an error of law had led to the formation of a contract, the result would be 21 that, for that reason, the contract would not land.

If money is paid under this contract, it cannot be said that the money was paid under an error of law, it was paid because it was due under a valid contract, and if it was not paid, the payment could have been made. In the case of Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh (1990), an illiterate woman put her stamp on two documents in which she believed that both should give property to their daughters. Later, she discovered that the second document was to deceive her over her property. Although this was a unilateral error by the illiterate, given that consent to this agreement was obtained through fraud and the woman was not aware of the nature of the transaction, the contract was quashed by the courts. In Waugh v Bussell, where a written contract contained an error that was obvious on its facts, namely “one book” for “one hundred pounds,” the contract was interpreted in accordance with the actual intent. These cases are dealt with by the courts through a correction or reform of the treaty, in order to express the true intention, and if this is not possible by managing the termination of the contract. If both parties have an error in the quantity of the object, the agreement is considered invalid. 1) The error must be made by both parties, i.e. it must be reciprocal 2)The error must be with respect to a fact. 3) It must relate to an essential circumstance for the contract. However, a false opinion about the value of the case that is the subject of the agreement is not characterized as an error of fact and is considered negligible for the agreement.

Rate This Album

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars6 Stars7 Stars8 Stars9 Stars10 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Comments are closed.