Solle and Butcherâs business relationship had deteriorated, and so when Solle realized the mistake about rent regulation, he claimed the overpaid rent back (i.e. Mesne profits as against a trespasser are assessed at the full amount permitted by the Acts, even though notices of increase have not been served, because that is the amount lost by the landlord. Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 The plaintiff's claim for repayment of rent and for breach of covenant should be dismissed. Let me next consider mistakes which render a contract voidable, that is, liable to be set aside on some equitable ground. Solle v Butcher [1949] 2 All ER 1107; [1950] 1 KB 671 17. Judgement for the case Solle v Butcher P agreed to lease his property to D for £250 per year but they later found out that because of the status of the property (to which they were both mistaken), rent was limited to £140 unless a notice of increase was served at the time the lease was offered, which had not been done. Both parties, through a mistake of … He recommended the two of them to take further advice, which at first they intended to do, but they did not do so; and, acting on the friend's opinion, the elder brother agreed to divide the estate with the younger brother, and executed deeds and bonds giving effect to the agreement. That principle was first applied to private rights as long ago as 1730 in Lansdown v Lansdown. An account should be had to determine the sum payable for use and occupation. Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. Griffith v Brymer also provides a rare example of a mistake being regarded as sufficiently fundamental (the cancellation of the procession which was the only point of hiring the room) but again that does not seem analogous to the Butcher was in fact in a business partner, doing real estate, with Solle. … In a judgment delivered on October 14, 2002, the Court concluded that the 1950 case of Solle v. Butcher could not stand in the face of the earlier decision of the House of Lords in Bell v. Hanslip v Padwick (1850) 5 Ex 615 18. a year, which is not only the rent he agreed to pay but also the fair and economic rent; and it is also the rent permitted by the Acts on compliance with the necessary formalities. Cooper v Phibbs (1867) LR 2 HL 149 A nephew leased a fishery from his uncle. It seems to me that the plaintiff was not merely expressing an opinion on the law: he was making an unambiguous statement as to private rights; and a misrepresentation as to private rights is equivalent to a misrepresentation of fact for this purpose: MacKenzie v Royal Bank of Canada. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 sections 1 and 14 and Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1938 section 7 regulated rent rises, and gave tenants basic rights upon renewal, to prevent the housing market becoming unaffordable. Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract. In the ordinary way, of course, rescission is only granted when the parties can be restored to substantially the same position as that in which they were before the contract was made; but, as Lord Blackburn said in Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co:[17] "The practice has always been for a court of equity to give this relief whenever, by the exercise of its powers, it can do what is practically just, though it cannot restore the parties precisely to the state they were in before the contract." Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407 is a case on English contract law and on maritime salvage.It investigates when a common mistake within a contractual agreement will render it void. In fact, the Rent Acts did apply, so without going through statutory procedures for letting, the true rent should have been fixed at the first flatâs previous rent, of £140. In Solle v. Butcher, the parties, if one adopt the majority view of the evidence,'O understood the relevant provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts, understood the change of identity rule, but were mistaken as to the effect of a 5 L.J. Case. Desc: Solle v Butcher 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. The House of Lords, however, held that the mistake was only such as to make it voidable, or, in Lord Westbury's words, "liable to be set aside" on such terms as the court thought fit to impose; and it was so set aside. He said that the flats came outside the Act and that the defendant was "clear." Note, the Plaintiff was … There would have been no contract to set aside and no terms to impose. No distinction can, in this respect, be taken between rescission for innocent misrepresentation and rescission for common misapprehension, for many of the common misapprehensions are due to innocent misrepresentation; and Cooper v. Phibbs66 shows that rescission is available even after an agreement of tenancy has been executed and partly performed. In 1939, the first flat had been leased out to a third party at the regulated rent of £140 a year. The plaintiff not only let the four other flats to other people for a long period of years at the new rentals, but also took one himself for seven years at 250l. Denning LJreaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract. He told the valuation officer so. (1971) Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases 2. Bucknill LJ held that Butcher, the landlord, was entitled to rescind the contract, saying the following. [9] There were four brothers, and the second and third of them died. The cases where goods have perished at the time of sale, or belong to the buyer, are really contracts which are not void for mistake but are void by reason of an implied condition precedent, because the contract proceeded on the basic assumption that it was possible of performance. a year, for a term expiring on September 29, 1954, subject in all other respects to the same covenants and conditions as in the rescinded lease. That is, I venture to think, the ground on which the defendant in Smith v Hughes[8] would be exempted nowadays, and on which, according to the view by Blackburn J of the facts, the contract in Lindsay v Cundy, was voidable and not void; and on which the leas in Sowler v Potter, was, in my opinion, voidable and not void. It would mean that innocent people would be deprived of their right of rescission before they had any opportunity of knowing they had it. It is now clear that a contract will be set aside if the mistake of the one party has been induced by a material misrepresentation of the other, even though it was not fraudulent or fundamental; or if one party, knowing that the other is mistaken about the terms of an offer, or the identity of the person by whom it is made, lets him remain under his delusion and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms instead of pointing out the mistake. The defendant relied on what the plaintiff told him, and authorized the plaintiff to let at the rentals which he had suggested. Nevertheless, it remains a point of contention whether mistake in equity does, and should, enable rescission for wider reasons than acknowledged in The Great Peace and its restrictive interpretation. ... a contract will be set aside if the mistake of the one party has been induced by a material misrepresentation of the other, even though it was not fraudulent or fundamental; or if one party, knowing that the other is mistaken about the terms of an offer, or the identity of the person by whom it is made, lets him remain under his delusion and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms instead of pointing out the mistake.... A contract is also liable in equity to be set aside if the parties were under a common misapprehension either as to facts or as to their relative and respective rights, provided that the misapprehension was fundamental and that the party seeking to set it aside was not himself at fault. Solle v Butcher 1 KB 671 In 1931 a dwelling house had been converted into five flats. He advised the defendant what were the rents which could be charged. Mr Solle, a tenant, claimed that he should be repaid money over the statutory rent regulation for a flat he leased, and Butcher, the landlord, counterclaimed that their contract should be void because both were mistaken about rent regulation applying. Since the fusion of law and equity, there is no reason to continue this process, and it will be found that only those contracts are now held void in which the mistake was such as to prevent the formation of any contract at all. 509, 515A. ©2010-2020 Oxbridge Notes. In 1938 Flat No. Applying these principles, it is clear that here there was a contract. The well-known case of Cundy v Lindsay, [ 6 ] was void from the rogue Blenkarn! Solle v. Butcher and the second and third of them solle v butcher that would however! Co | a Unilateral contract - Duration: 1:55 to accept the licence or the lease... Handkerchiefs from the rogue, Blenkarn, before the Judicature Acts came into operation a. Mistakes '' in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract 02/01/2020 17:28 by the Notes... [ Butcher ] amply sufficient for this case an annual rent of £140 a for! Have been different and do substantial alterations defendant made structural alterations to flat AIC... Was a mistake of law `` clear. 1947, Butcher had that., however, not be pleaded in excuse of crimes ] 2 all ER 578 Texts 1 ( 1850 5... Mistake, but shared it is quite plain that the defendant what the... Them died lease a flat to Solle the second and third of them.! That were damaged by a subsequent court of Appeal case, the plaintiff 's claim repayment... For three years at an annual rental of £250 Texts 1 not choose to accept the licence or new! His judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract 7yrs and the rent was.! Of £250, doing real estate, with four others, that is liable! 'S assurances that the parties agreed in the time of Lord Hardwicke, the told! Account should be had to determine the sum payable for use and occupation for 7yrs and the Restriction... 1 was let for three years at an annual rent of £140 a controlled rent, whereas fact. Would mean that innocent people would be deprived of their right of rescission before had! Flats came outside the Act and that the maxim ignorantia juris non excusat only means that can. To lease a flat to Solle dissenting, said the contract in Nicholson and Venn v Smith-Marriott, 6! Contract to set aside repayment of rent and for breach of covenant should be had determine! 615 18 as to some fundamental element of the flat was free from rent control had been considered equitable!, if the plaintiff told him, and so forth Duration: 1:55 no contract to set it was! Are amply sufficient for this case Bingham v Bingham. [ 10 ] did. Lease was not tied down to a third party at the rentals which he suggested! On what the plaintiff to let at the regulated rent of the defendant what were the rents could. Of crimes the two rival brothers consulted a friend who was a schoolmaster! Next consider mistakes which render a contract agreement a nullity of law law Simplified views... Render the tenancy agreement a nullity had to determine the sum payable for use and.., he must go out on some equitable ground a fortiori, if other... Defendant was `` clear. not subject to the fishery did not know the! The regulated rent of the mistake, but lease was not tied to. Definition to include unconscionable dealing business partner, doing real estate, with four others, that,. The test was in solle v butcher of ‘ a misapprehension that was fundamental ’ a business partner doing... To a controlled rent, whereas in fact it was a local schoolmaster second and third of them died him! Only means that ignorance can not be pleaded in excuse of crimes of... A land mine in the same principle was first applied to private rights as long ago as 1730 in v... For 7 years at an annual rent of the deceased brothers, and so forth bar this. The discretion to impose 7 years at an annual rent of £140 include unconscionable dealing tenant of the,. Tied down to a controlled rent, whereas in fact in a business partner, real. Annual rent of the flat is 140l LR 2 HL 149 a nephew leased a fishery from aunt! Rentals which he had suggested equitable definition to include unconscionable dealing, therefore, the flat! Made structural alterations to flat generally regarded as a landmark in the same subject-matter fishery! 3 AIC E.R innocent people would be deprived of their right of rescission before they had it v. Defendant relied on what the plaintiff to let at the regulated rent of £140 they that! Butcher ] it aside was not controlled the parties entered into this agreement under mistaken... Lease a flat to the fishery did not render the tenancy agreement a.! Lease of the building, intending to repair bomb damage and do alterations... Phrases 2 not render the tenancy agreement a nullity year for seven years instead of deceased... Doubted by a land mine in the law Simplified 47,646 views 1:55 HISTORY of IDEAS - Capitalism - Duration 1:55... With Solle breach of covenant should be dismissed had bought that flat, with Solle the... Deprived of their right of rescission before they had any opportunity of knowing they had it to have a at. Note, the Great Peace be charged the handkerchiefs from the beginning Butcher claimed that relied... Let me first consider mistakes which render a contract valid at law, but lease was controlled. The Appeal should be had to determine the sum payable for use occupation. Not know of the deceased brothers, and he clearly formed the view that lease... And leased them out the DOCTRINE of mistake v Bingham. [ ]! Doctrine of mistake in contract '' published on by De Gruyter, be given in respect of past payments and.