Fred says she had no reason to suspect she thought he owned the blue car. Area of law: Mistake Mistake has been made by both of them. Look at contractual mistakes act. Look at section 6(a) 3 types of mistake. Would be option 3 – mutual mistake (no element of fraud) Need to then look at inducement. 6(1 )(b) substantial unequal exchange in values – this would need to be the result. Disproportionate to consideration etc. Appears there may not be that much difference in value between the two. Could be difficult to set aside contract. Color is unlikely to affect the value.
Tina will probably have to go ahead With the red car. Mistakes act will not give her a remedy. Non-est.-factotum – may be able to get a remedy? Look up by self. Contract for sale of goods? 1 . A contract to manufacture and supply 2000 meat pies for the student cafeteria. – Yes 2. A contract to paint a house, including the supply of the necessary paints and materials. – No, supply of services. 3. A contract to supply and fit tires to factory built tractors. – Yes, fitting is incidental to the work. 4. A contract to fix a computer that is malfunctioning. No, a service. Sales distinguished from any transactions. Victim Global Netherlands B Iv Scene 1 (Real case) 1 . Jan 2008 Victim licenses Scene 1 with exclusive right to distribute its DVD’s in NZ (license was not registered on the UPS register) 2. Feb. 2008 Scene 1 enters into a General Security Deed with CABS Bank, giving CABS a charge over all its personal property. (CABS registers security on UPS register) 3. Scene 1 went into receivership while possessing 500,000 Victim DVD’s CABS will have priority because of UPS security.