In contract law, a unilateral mistake occurs when only one party is mistaken about a fundamental aspect of the contract. Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, such mistakes generally do not render a contract void or voidable, except in specific circumstances.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 22 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addresses unilateral mistakes:

“A contract is not voidable merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact.”

This provision implies that a contract remains valid even if one party is mistaken about a fact, unless the mistake is induced by fraud or misrepresentation.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

While unilateral mistakes typically do not affect the validity of a contract, exceptions exist:

1. Mistake Regarding the Nature of the Contract

If one party is mistaken about the very nature of the agreement, and the other party is aware of this mistake, the contract may be void.

• Case Law: In Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh, an illiterate woman placed her thumb impression on documents, believing them to be gift deeds for her daughters. Later, she discovered that one document was a sale deed transferring her property. The court held the contract void, recognizing her unilateral mistake about the nature of the transaction.

2. Mistake Regarding the Identity of the Party

If a party is mistaken about the identity of the person they are contracting with, and this identity is crucial to the agreement, the contract may be void.

• Case Law: In Cundy v. Lindsay, a fraudster impersonated a reputable firm to purchase goods on credit. The seller, believing they were dealing with the reputable firm, delivered the goods. When the fraudster defaulted, the court held that there was no valid contract due to the seller’s unilateral mistake regarding the buyer’s identity.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

Indian courts have consistently upheld the principle that a unilateral mistake does not void a contract unless accompanied by fraud or misrepresentation.

• Case Law: In Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh, the Supreme Court clarified that a unilateral mistake would not render a contract void under Indian contract law.

CONCLUSION

The doctrine of unilateral mistake under Indian contract law maintains that contracts are generally not voidable due to one party’s mistake, unless specific exceptions apply. This principle upholds the sanctity of contracts while providing relief in cases involving fraud or fundamental misunderstandings.

REFERENCES

1. Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 22.
2. Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh, AIR 1990 Pat 100.
3. Cundy v. Lindsay, (1878) 3 App Cas 459.
4. Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 471.