Elements in a Contract 31
A contract is void when it is no longer possible to comply
with the terms of the contract. Property belonging to mentally disable persons
for example are brought under the jurisdiction of the courts and contracts
entered into by anyone suffering from a mental disability is normally rendered
void.
The law seeks to protect their rights and interests by
making any contracts that they may have entered into without fully
understanding or comprehending the nature and the terms of the contract by
declaring such contracts void (Mental Health Act 1983).
A contract may also be declared void if the contract is
beyond or exceeds the authority of a company or is made ultra vires (beyond the
scope of one’s legal authority). In Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Company
Ltd. v Riche (1875) the company gave the plaintiff a loan to build a railway in
Belgium. Subsequently the company refused the loan and the plaintiff sued. The
company, in its defense pleaded that it was beyond its powers to grant the
loan. The courts held that if a company pursues objectives that are beyond its
articles of association than such contracts are void.
The presence of vitiating factors also renders a contract
void. Vitiating factors that render a contract void are as follow: -
1. Mistake
2. Duress or coercion
3. Undue influence
4. Illegality
In Scott v Coulson (1903) the plaintiff and the defendant
entered into a contract to insure the life of a third party, that at the time
the contract was entered into, they believed was alive, but as it turned out
the third party in question was deceased. The court held that the contract was
void.
In Couturier v Hastie (1856) a cargo of corn was on board a
ship sailing from the Mediterranean to London. During the journey, due to
extensive heat, the crew discovered that the cargo was going bad and sold the
corn at the nearest port. In the meantime, the seller and buyer who were not
aware of the fact that the corn had been sold, entered into a contract under
the assumption that the corn was still on board the ship. It was held that the
contract was void because the subject of the contract did not exist.
In Hartog v Colin and Shields (1939) the defendants were in
possession of hare skins which they intended to sell at a price per piece as
dictated by custom but instead quoted the price as per pound. When the
defendants realized their mistake, they tried to stop the sale and the
plaintiffs sued. The court held that the contract was void.
A mistake however will only render a contract void if it is
a shared mistake and the mistake goes to the core or the root of the contract.
In McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951)
(Australia) for example, the defendant sold the plaintiff a wrecked tanker that
did not exist. The plaintiff only became aware of the fact that the tanker did
not exist after he’d spent a great deal of time and money looking for it. The
plaintiff sued and the defendant argued that the contract was void. The court
rejected the defendant’s argument and held that the sale of the wreck included
an implied warranty that the wreck did indeed exist and therefore the defendant
was liable and was ordered to pay damages.
A contract is also rendered void when an innocent party is
coerced or compelled into entering into a contract. In Walter v Morgan (1861)
the defendant had acquired some land and the plaintiff compelled the defendant
to sign a lease allowing the plaintiff to mine on the land. The defendant once
he’d discovered the true value of the land refused to allow the plaintiff to
mine on the land and the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant. The
court rejected the plaintiff’s argument and found in favor of the defendant.
Contracts that are against the law or contravene the law are
also rendered void. In Anderson Ltd. v Daniel (1924) the seller sold the buyer
artificial fertilizer. According to the law any invoice for the sale of
artificial fertilizers must include details of the chemicals that were used in
the manufacturing process. Because the seller had not complied with the legal
requirements, the buyer refused to pay and the court found in favor of the
buyer.
Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward and Kathiresan
Ramachanderam
Comments
Post a Comment