Mutual mistakes in contractual affairs usually end with the contract being cancelled, so it can be renegotiated so that both parties agree on the terms of the contract. An error of fact can be both unilateral and reciprocal – depending on whether one or both parties have misunderstood the information contained in the contract. Transmission error: An error in the transmission of a contract by an intermediary. If both parties reach an agreement but also make a mistake about the same terms of the contract, this is considered a mutual error. The most famous case of mutual error is Raffles v. Wichelhaus, who demonstrated the Peerless rule. If a unilateral error occurs during negotiations, it could affect the outcome of the contract. It can, but is not always unfair, if one party understands the contract and the other party does not. If both parties are wrong or if only one party decides whether a contract is voidable. A one-sided mistake gives one party an unfair advantage over the other, while mutual mistakes disadvantage both parties.
However, several modern cases have shown that if the erroneous party informs the other party of the error before the non-erroneous party relies on the error, the erroneous party may terminate the contract. A unilateral error could invalidate a contract if the other party has an unscrupulous advantage in a contract because they fully understand the terms set out in the document. Illustration: Lady found a stone and sold it as topaz for $1 ($25 today). It was an uncut rough diamond worth $700 ($17,000 today). The contract is not cancellable. There was no mistake, because neither party knew what the stone was.  There are two broad categories of errors in contract law: error of law and error of fact. It is important to know that both are valid contractual defenses.
In this case, both parties believed that there had been a « meeting of spirits », but found that they had mistaken about the different meaning of the other party. This is not a mutual error, but a failure of mutual consent. In this situation, no contract has been concluded, as mutual consent is required at the conclusion stage. Restatement (second) of contracts Article 20 deals with this scenario. Contract law based on unilateral errors offers two ways to correct a unilateral error in contracts. Either it can be resolved by a reform of the contract so that both parties fully understand the terms, or either party can terminate the contract completely. Error of fact. This is a misconception other than an error of law. Examples include false beliefs about the meaning of a term or the identity of a person or place. There are two types of factual errors: Note that it is important to determine whether the wrong party knows that the other party does not understand a provision of the contract.
If the party who is not mistaken knows or should know that the other party has made a unilateral mistake, this usually leads to the termination of the contract (cancellation). On the other hand, if the other party was not aware of the error, the contract can be reformed (rewritten). This is easily confused with cases of mutual consent such as Raffles v. Wichelhaus.  An error in contract law occurs when one or both parties have a false belief in a contract. An error can be a misunderstanding about the terms, laws or information relevant to a binding contract. The Error Recording and Correction Act was upheld by the United States Court of International Trade in Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. v. United States, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (I.C.L. 2006), in which the Court was confronted with the application of a tariff calculated by a customs officer to the wrong tariff.
In order to enforce « anti-dumping » legislation against foreign-produced products (in this case, Korean electronic components) that were produced with cheap labor and were inferior to those of the US industry, a regulatory system was introduced under which such imports were subject to a « liquidation duty » at a rate that can be found in a schedule. The schedule was established by a panel of experts who used standards to adjust the price difference for foreign goods. The customs officer used the wrong class of goods and overcharged duties, and when Hynix discovered what had happened, part of a very short limitation period had expired. However, Hynix won the case and obtained the correction of its duty rate by proving that such an error. » could be corrected under 19 U.S.C. § 1520(c) as an error of fact or material that does not constitute an error of interpretation of any law, and because failure to file an objection within ninety days of the deletion of the entries has no legal consequence in this regard. Id. at page 1319. There are three types of errors in contract law: unilateral errors, mutual errors and common errors. A mutual error is a false assumption made by both parties regarding the terms of the contract. This means that if the parties conclude a contract and both parties have the same false assumption about a fact concerning the contract, the contract can be avoided by the party aggrieved by the error (as long as that party has not borne the risk that the assumption was wrong).
For example, if the party who is not wrong did not know or had no reason to know the other party`s error, there is a binding contract. In this case, if the erroneous party discovers the defect and refuses performance, the non-erroneous party is entitled to compensation. If you didn`t attend law school, contract law can often seem overwhelming.