Commentary

99 Mistake as to identity

BAILMENT vol 3(1)
| Commentary

99 Mistake as to identity

| Commentary

99 Mistake as to identity

In those rare cases where the parties are at cross purposes as to the very object to be loaned, either party might in principle claim relief from the agreement, as one founded on a fundamental mistake that negatives consent1. Such a result seems clear in cases of blatant mistake, such as where one party believes it is agreeing to lend a Tang Dynasty Earth Spirit and the other believes that it is agreeing to borrow an Expressionist picture by Edvard Munch. The position is less certain, however, where the parties are agreed on the specific

To continue reading
View the latest version of this document, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial