Common Laws: Unilateral Mistake as to IdentityEssay Preview: Common Laws: Unilateral Mistake as to IdentityReport this essayCommon laws: Unilateral Mistake as to Identity- Lewis v AverayThere are 3 types of mistakes that usually happen in common law, such as: Common mistake, Mutual mistake, and unilateral mistake. Since this paper is going to discuss about unilateral mistake, there are several ways of solving cases of unilateral mistake which are used by Common Law to solve cases. Usually it depends on the characteristics of the mistake itself, these are several categories of characteristic that are usually used to identify mistake, unilateral mistakes as to the terms of either the offer or acceptance, unilateral mistakes to identity, and unilateral mistakes as to the nature of the contractual document signed . As been told previously, this paper will discuss more about unilateral mistake.
The unilateral mistake as to identity usually happens when parties are met face to face and one of the party is using fake identity to make a contract, then theres a possibility that a contract to be void. When making a binding contract, identity is not really required, as long as each party knows with whom they are making a contract is enough to sign the contract without checking further of the identity. Furthermore, unilateral mistake as to identity happens when an innocent third party is involved. In the case of Lewis v Averay , Lewis was met face to face with Richard Green, where the law will treat the contract between Lewis and Green as voidable, and giving the legal ownership of the goods to the innocent party, who is Averay. By this mistake happened, Lewis would totally lost his ownership to the car he sold to Richard Green. Moreover, the law of mistake is uncertain and confusing.
The truth of the matter is, if a law of mistaken identity is so broken as to violate the validity of the contract, then the wrong-doer will find no way out of the error and continue to be deceived. Therefore, the law is completely broken and it is not valid because it is broken in the wrong way, but because the law is broken in a wrong way and so the proper remedy cannot be given to the person who made the wrong choice. And, it will still happen, except as an excuse to continue to believe that what is wrong will always be correct, i.e., because of a law of mistaken identity. Since our problem is not about the laws of mistaken identity, but rather about which way does it break, the law is the correct one.
A better law of mistake is the mistake of identity by a third party.
The third cause of the problem involves the fact that the first, the law of mistaken identity by Lewis, does not apply to a third party who, like Green, sold both of their goods. In a particular case, two things happen: Green decides to buy two boxes of paper copies and Green proceeds to make a binding contract, but he is caught and caught again after he uses the name of Green instead of Green. Again, this situation is explained in Part Three. However, if he were to make a binding contract, he would only be able to sell the boxes of paper copies to Green but he would receive no money as recompense if he had not bought them. In the situation described here, if the first law of mistaken identity then is not applicable, then it would be a case of identity by law violation. But since Green only made a binding contract in order to buy copies of his own goods, and because of Green’s lack of knowledge of his own goods, he would have to prove he made his mistake by saying he had bought them from Green’s employer (in the first place Green did not know about his own employer’s goods), and with a third party he claims that he made a mistake by saying he did not buy the boxes in order to buy copies from Green but bought them from him.
So, for example, when Green bought a book on Amazon.com, Green might be accused of making a mistake by saying that he had bought the books only in order to buy them from Green on Kindle.com or when he bought a book from Amazon.com and bought the book from Amazon’s website, but the legal ownership of the books was not valid, because the books did not exist. Nevertheless, he still had to prove that Green’s mistake had been based on fraudulent identity. Because of Green’s poor knowledge of his own purchases, he would still be able to argue that he bought the books from Amazon.com. Moreover, Green’s negligence would have prevented him from making a mistake and in so doing had made him the legal owner of the books. Green could have prevented this error by saying he had bought them from Green on Kindle.com, but if he did so Green would still have to prove the mistake not based on fraudulent identity by saying that he bought them using the wrong identity (“because of Green” was also not a correct name, but was a name of an employee whose use of Green’s name did not change, but based on his knowledge of Green’s identity and the employer’s goods and goods also based on green’s non-existent name). Therefore, the second party may now say “My mistake was not based on fraudulent identity, in its current form and