In contract law, a bilateral mistake occurs when both parties to an agreement share a fundamental misunderstanding about a vital fact related to the contract. This mutual error can significantly impact the validity and enforceability of the contract, especially under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
MEANING AND DEFINITION
A bilateral mistake involves both parties holding an incorrect belief about a fact essential to the agreement. According to Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “Where both the parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.” This principle is rooted in the legal maxim ignorantia facti excusat, meaning ignorance of a fact excuses. In such cases, the absence of a true meeting of minds (consensus ad idem) renders the contract void.
ESSENTIALS OF BILATERAL MISTAKE
For a bilateral mistake to render a contract void under Section 20, the following conditions must be met:
-
Mutual Mistake: Both parties must share the same misconception regarding a fact. If only one party is mistaken, it constitutes a unilateral mistake, which does not void the contract under this provision.
-
Mistake of Fact: The error must pertain to a fact, not law. Section 21 of the Act clarifies that a contract is not voidable due to a mistake of law in force in India.
-
Essential Fact: The mistaken fact must be fundamental to the agreement’s nature. Trivial or non-essential errors do not affect the contract’s validity.
TYPES OF BILATERAL MISTAKES
Bilateral mistakes can be categorized based on the nature of the misunderstanding:
-
Existence of Subject Matter: Both parties believe the subject matter exists when it does not. For instance, agreeing to sell goods believed to be in transit, which had perished unbeknownst to both parties, renders the contract void.
-
Identity of Subject Matter: Each party refers to a different subject, leading to a lack of agreement. For example, if A agrees to sell “his car” to B, intending to sell a sedan, while B believes he’s purchasing an SUV, there’s no true agreement, and the contract is void.
-
Quality of Subject Matter: A mutual mistake about the quality or attributes of the subject matter can void the contract if the mistaken quality is fundamental. In Smith v. Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597, the buyer believed he was purchasing old oats, but the seller delivered new oats. The court held that the contract was valid since the mistake was not about the subject matter itself but its quality.
-
Possibility of Performance: If both parties are mistaken about the feasibility of performing the contract, it becomes void. This includes physical or legal impossibilities unknown to both parties at the time of agreement.
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF BILATERAL MISTAKE
When a contract is void due to a bilateral mistake:
- Void Ab Initio: The contract is considered null from the outset, as if it never existed.
- Restitution: Parties must restore any benefits received under the contract to prevent unjust enrichment.
- No Legal Obligations: Neither party can enforce the contract or claim damages for non-performance.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN BILATERAL AND UNILATERAL MISTAKE
It is crucial to differentiate between bilateral and unilateral mistakes:
| Aspect | Bilateral Mistake | Unilateral Mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Both parties share the same incorrect belief about an essential fact. | Only one party is mistaken about a fact; the other party is aware of the truth. |
| Legal Effect | Renders the contract void under Section 20 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. | Generally, the contract remains valid unless the non-mistaken party knew or ought to have known about the mistake. |
| Example | Both parties believe a painting is an original when it’s a replica. | One party believes they’re buying a gold ring; the seller knows it’s gold-plated but doesn’t disclose this. |
RELEVANT CASE LAWS
-
Galloway v. Galloway (1914): A man and woman, mistakenly believing they were legally married, entered into a separation agreement. Later, it was discovered that the man’s first wife was still alive, making the subsequent marriage void. The court held that the separation agreement was void due to the mutual mistake regarding their marital status.
-
Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) 2 Hurl & C 906: The parties agreed upon the sale of cotton to arrive on the ship “Peerless.” However, there were two ships named “Peerless” arriving at different times. The buyer meant one, while the seller referred to the other. The court concluded that there was no consensus ad idem, rendering the contract void due to the mutual mistake about the ship’s identity.
DOCTRINES AND PRINCIPLES
-
Consensus Ad Idem: This Latin phrase means “meeting of the minds.” For a valid contract, both parties must agree on the same thing in the same sense. A bilateral mistake undermines this principle, leading to a void contract.
-
Ignorantia Facti Excusat: Translating to “ignorance of fact excuses,” this maxim applies to bilateral mistakes, excusing parties from contractual obligations when both are mistaken about an essential fact.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
In English contract law, the principles regarding bilateral mistakes are similar to those in Indian law. A mutual mistake about a fundamental fact can render a contract void. However, the application may vary based on jurisdictional interpretations and specific case laws.
