Mutual Mistake The first problem arises when Muddle asks to be provided with ‘Strawberry Thief’ wallpaper so that he can start wall-papering the office. The problem concerns the issue of mutual mistake as Sharp, Practice & Co and Muddle seems to be at cross-purpose over the terms of the contract. Both parties believe that the other party is in agreement with their own versions of contract. They do not realise that there is a misunderstanding as to the subject matter of the contract. Sharp, Practice & Co does not intend to buy the ‘Strawberry Thief” wallpaper at their own cost and supply it to Muddle. On the other hand, Muddle thought that Sharp, Practice, & Co will buy the wallpaper at their own cost and supply it to Muddle, thus not including …show more content…
In fact, there are new oats and therefore not suitable for the buyer’s proposed use. The buyer argued that the contract is void but the court disagrees. In the case, when applying objective test, there is no ambiguity in the contract. It is clear that the buyer correctly understands that the seller’s offer is an offer to sell oat, but he mistakenly believes these oats to be old oats and the mistake is known to the seller. According to Statoil ASA v Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP , the seller is not obliged to inform the buyer that he has made a mistake. It seems like the case of Smith v Hughes will be more relevant here. Sharp, Practice & Co does not specify that they will supply the wallpaper. Thus, it is unlikely that Muddle will have a claim of mutual mistake as he has the responsibility to ensure that the wallpapers will be provided as he believed them to be. He cannot escape from what is a bad bargain for him by arguing that it was the responsibility of Sharp, Practice & Co to inform him of his mistake. The fact that the buyer mistakenly thought that the wallpapers will be supplied was his own fault, and not a reason for excusing him from the