Mutual Misunderstanding under Contracts
Mutual Misunderstanding under Contracts
Mutual misunderstanding occurs when the parties to a contract have fundamentally different interpretations of a term or the subject matter of the agreement, such that they are not actually agreeing on the same thing. This affects the formation of a valid contract.
1. Definition and Nature
A contract requires a meeting of minds (consensus ad idem) — both parties must agree on the same terms and to the same thing.
Mutual misunderstanding arises when each party attaches a different meaning to a key term or the overall agreement, and neither party knows or intends the other’s meaning.
In such cases, there is no true agreement, so the contract may be void for lack of consensus.
2. Effect of Mutual Misunderstanding
If a court finds a mutual misunderstanding, the contract is often held void because there was no real consent.
This is different from a unilateral mistake, where only one party is mistaken.
The court looks at whether a reasonable person would believe the parties agreed to the same thing.
3. Elements of Mutual Misunderstanding
Different meanings: The parties attach materially different meanings to a term or subject matter.
No awareness: Neither party is aware of the other’s interpretation.
No meeting of minds: No true agreement on the contract’s essential terms.
4. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864)
Also known as the “Peerless” case.
Parties contracted for cotton to be shipped on the ship “Peerless.” There were two ships named Peerless sailing from Bombay at different times. Each party referred to a different ship.
The court held there was no binding contract due to mutual misunderstanding about which ship was meant—no consensus ad idem.
Case 2: Smith v. Hughes (1871)
Although primarily about unilateral mistake, this case illustrates the principle that if one party is mistaken but the other is not, the contract may still be valid unless there was fraud or misrepresentation.
It highlights the difference from mutual misunderstanding, where both parties misunderstand the terms.
Case 3: Wood v. Boynton (1885)
A contract for the sale of a stone thought to be a worthless pebble, but actually a diamond.
This was not mutual misunderstanding but mistake as to quality, showing that mistake must be about the subject matter, not just value.
5. Distinction from Other Mistakes
Mutual mistake: Both parties misunderstand the same fact.
Mutual misunderstanding: Each party has a different interpretation of the contract terms.
Unilateral mistake: Only one party is mistaken.
Common mistake: Both parties share the same mistaken belief about a fact.
Summary
Mutual misunderstanding prevents the formation of a valid contract due to lack of true agreement.
Courts examine whether parties had a meeting of minds on essential terms.
The classic example is the Raffles v. Wichelhaus case involving the “Peerless” ships.
When mutual misunderstanding occurs, the contract is usually void.
RELATED Blog
0 comments