Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- General editors' preface
- Preface
- List of contributors
- Table of legislation
- Table of cases
- List of abbreviations
- 1 General introduction
- 2 Mistake, misrepresentation and precontractual duties to inform: the civil law tradition
- 3 The rise and fall of mistake in the English law of contract
- 4 Case studies
- Case 1 Anatole v. Bob
- Case 2 Célimène v. Damien
- Case 3 Emile v. Far Eastern Delights
- Case 4 Mr and Mrs Timeless v. Mr and Mrs Careless
- Case 5 Bruno v. The Local Garage
- Case 6 Emmanuel v. The Computer Shop
- Case 7 Cinderella
- Case 8 Estella v. Uriah Heep
- Case 9 Nell v. Scrooge Bank
- Case 10 Zachary
- Case 11 Monstrous Inventions Ltd v. Mary Shelley
- Case 12 Lady Windermere v. Angel
- 5 Comparative conclusions
- Index
Case 3 - Emile v. Far Eastern Delights
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 August 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- General editors' preface
- Preface
- List of contributors
- Table of legislation
- Table of cases
- List of abbreviations
- 1 General introduction
- 2 Mistake, misrepresentation and precontractual duties to inform: the civil law tradition
- 3 The rise and fall of mistake in the English law of contract
- 4 Case studies
- Case 1 Anatole v. Bob
- Case 2 Célimène v. Damien
- Case 3 Emile v. Far Eastern Delights
- Case 4 Mr and Mrs Timeless v. Mr and Mrs Careless
- Case 5 Bruno v. The Local Garage
- Case 6 Emmanuel v. The Computer Shop
- Case 7 Cinderella
- Case 8 Estella v. Uriah Heep
- Case 9 Nell v. Scrooge Bank
- Case 10 Zachary
- Case 11 Monstrous Inventions Ltd v. Mary Shelley
- Case 12 Lady Windermere v. Angel
- 5 Comparative conclusions
- Index
Summary
Case
Far Eastern Delights, an ancient oriental art gallery, sold a Chinese statuette to Emile, an amateur art lover. The piece was described by Far Eastern Delights' catalogue as ‘Tang dynasty, practically intact with very few restorations’. Emile has now discovered that the head and hands are in fact very recent, and that little remains of the original work. What remedy, if any, is available?
Discussions
Austria
(i) This case again covers a mistake as to the content of the contract (mistake as to the characteristics and qualities of the subject matter).
(a) On one view, there seems to be a common mistake to both parties, if it is considered that Far Eastern Delights did not know that the Chinese statuette sold had not been a pure and practically intact original statuette of the Tang Dynasty. This mistake common to both parties, however, is less problematic than in Case 1. As already described, the prevailing view and the unbroken line of authorities under which a common mistake is to be added to the cases named and recognised in § 871 ABGB and, therefore, entitles both parties to a right to annul or to adapt is criticised on the grounds that a mistake common to both parties does not fit with the system of § 871 ABGB which emphasises the importance of protecting the non-mistaken party since in case of a common mistake both parties are equally worthy to be protected.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Mistake, Fraud and Duties to Inform in European Contract Law , pp. 164 - 192Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005