Muirhead and Turnbull v Dickson, 1905, 7 F. 686
Citation:Muirhead and Turnbull v Dickson, 1905, 7 F. 686
Rule of thumb: What happens if you enter into a contract but genuinely made a mistake about the terms of it? If the terms of it are written then the general rule is that you are stuck with it & ignorance is no excuse.
Judgment:
The basic facts of this case were that there was an agreement for transfer of a piano. One of the parties believed that they had entered a hire purchase agreement rather than a transfer for the piano which led to the question of whether the piano should go back to the person who had originally transferred it. The Court looked at the contract which stated that it was not a hire purchase agreement but an agreement to transfer it, and there was no uncertainty. The Court held that the intention of the parties is not as important as what is actually written in the contract, if it can be objectively assessed. The fact that the party was confused about the nature of the agreement did not make the agreement invalid because the contract itself was actually clear. The owner of the piano in this case had to begin separate debt collection procedures to get the money they were owed for the piano, ‘contracts cannot be arranged by what people think in their inner most minds... contract are made according to what people say’, Lord President Dunedin
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.