Mistake of Law Indian Cases

The right of error in a particular contract is governed by the law governed by the contract. The law can vary considerably from country to country. For example, contracts concluded on the basis of a relevant error are not voidable under English law since Great Peace Shipping v. Tsavliris (International) Ltd (2002). A and B are friends and play video games in A`s house. After playing for an hour, B decides to leave and takes A`s video game, considering he has his video game. A repeats to B that the video game does not belong to him. It doesn`t matter if A says it, B takes the video game. In the present case, B`s plea of error of law cannot be raised.

Since the error of fact can be used in defence and is excusable, the error must be reasonable and honest. Ignorance of the facts is an excuse because it prevents the accused from establishing the mens rea required. This can be clearly understood from this example. Before going to the temple, he fired his gun and left it empty. But while she was away, someone else used her gun to shoot and held the loaded gun where A had left it. A came back from the temple and accidentally hit the trigger, forcing him to shoot and the bullet killed his wife, who was in the room. In this case, A had reason to believe that the weapon was not loaded. He can therefore plead an error of fact in this case. In Orissa v. Khora Ghazi, while guarding his field, the accused shot an arrow at the moving object, in good faith that it was a bear, but the shooting resulted in the death of the person.

Here, immunity can be invoked on the basis of an error of fact. If the contracting parties are not mistaken as to the subject-matter of the contract, but as to its nature, the contract shall be deemed effective. In Grant v. Borg, the respondent was charged under the Immigration Act 1971 with staying beyond the time limit set by his leave. He claimed that he had requested an extension of his stay, but these were rejected. He was held liable because it was an error of law. In The King v. Tustipada Mandal, it was stated: “Error of law means error of law as to the existence or non-existence of a law on a particular subject, as well as errors as to what the law is.” The maxim ignorantia juris non excusat forms the basis of § 76. This rule is based on another rule of evidence that “every person is presumed to know the law.” There are some exceptions to the maxim “ignorantia facti doth excuse”. First, no one can invoke ignorance of the facts when a responsible investigation would have produced the real facts. For example, if a person recouples because they honestly believe that their previous marriage was dissolved by a decree, but the decree was not granted, they cannot plead an error of fact and will be guilty of bigamy.

Nor can an error of fact be accepted as an objection if the act is punishable by law. For example, adulterated food cannot be sold on the basis of ignorance of the facts, as this is punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. Miss X walked her Pomeranian dog every morning. One morning, while talking to her friend on the phone, Miss X lost her dog. Looking for her dog, she found another dog of the same breed, assuming it was her own dog, she brought him home. Although she noticed it later, the sign her dog had was not there and she accidentally took someone else`s dog. Miss X is not responsible here, as it was an error of fact. Section 20 of the Act states that if essential facts of the contract have been interpreted as errors, the contract becomes contestable.

It could also be considered unilateral and bilateral, that is, one of the parties and both parties. But Article 22 mentions that it is not open to challenge if a party has made an error of fact in the contract. In the event of a mutual error of fact, it becomes questionable. The Latin maxim ignorantia juris non excusat means that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Therefore, under section 21 of the Indian Treaties Act, 1872, a contract cannot be said to be voidable because of the parties` error in understanding the laws applicable in India. Therefore, Contracting Parties cannot appeal on the grounds that they were unaware of Indian law. In Cooper v. Phibbs (1867), the plaintiff accepted a fishing right from the defendant without knowing that he already had a lifelong interest in the right to fish. The plaintiff therefore brought an action to terminate the lease and the defendant argued that this was an error of law. It was held that an error of ownership or common law amounted to an error of law and was therefore set aside. Before understanding what is error of fact and errors of law. Let`s move on to some basic concepts, which is General Defence? While § 20 mentions that both parties are ignorant, § 22 states that the contract is not voidable only because it was caused by one of the parties, because he made an error in fact.

[3] If a person committed an illegal act in error, but with good intent and an honest belief that he or she had to do so, he or she may plead not guilty. For example, A, a 17-year-old boy, went to buy alcohol at the store. B, the shopkeeper, who believed A was over 18 years old, sold him alcohol. A police officer caught A and charged B with selling alcohol to a minor, which is punishable. In this case, B can rely on an error of fact because he honestly believed that A was over 18 years of age. But if a police officer catches B with a rifle and B doesn`t have a valid license to own a rifle. B cannot rely on an error of fact because it is an error of law. It is assumed to know the law of the land. In the event of a unilateral error, the contract can only be avoided if it is proved that the contract was caused by fraud or misrepresentation on the part of one of the parties. In Kentucky, it was decided that in French Bank of California v.

First National Bank of Louisville, money received accidentally does not have to be returned if there is an irrevocable change in position. He noted that errors should only be corrected by a court order or compensation. In general, error of fact can be used as a defence to evade liability, with the absence of mensrea being considered one of the most important essential elements; It must be honest, reasonable and genuine. On the other hand, the loophole in the law is no excuse, given its effects and the duty of the individual to know the laws, except for minors, the insane and the mentally ill. However, there are few exceptions to this rule, which grants exceptions to liability for error of law. But an erroneous opinion about the value of the thing that is the subject of the agreement is not called an error of fact and is considered insignificant to the agreement. If the error of fact can be regarded as an objection to the reduction of liability, the exception of absence of mens rea is raised; Error of law is not a defence, provided that everyone, with a few exceptions, knows the laws.