A party who has entered into a written contract under a serious mistake about its contents in relation to a fundamental term will be entitled in equity to an order rescinding the contract if the other party is aware that circumstances exist which indicate that the first party is entering the contract under some serious mistake or misapprehension about either the content or subject matter of that term and deliberately sets out to ensure that the first party does not become aware of the existence of his mistake or misapprehension.
A purchaser's knowledge of a vendor's unilateral mistake as to the contents of a contract for sale of land may be inferred from circumstantial evidence including the timing and content of post-exchange correspondence and the commercial context, even where the vendor's direct evidence of express communications about the mistake is rejected. The Taylor v Johnson principle does not require proof that the purchaser was expressly told of the mistake; it is sufficient that the non-mistaken party chose to leave the mistaken party under the misapprehension.
No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.
Generate the headnoteFree trial · no card required
Legal principles extracted from this case
Cases considered by Toma v Olcorn
Cases that have considered Toma v Olcorn
Referred to (1)
Judicial Consideration (Chronological)