Unilateral and mutual mistakes

From our free online course, “Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract”: www.edx.org/course/contract-l...
Professor Charles Fried discusses examples of unilateral and mutual mistakes.
- Subscribe to our channel: / @harvardonline
- Sign up for emails about new courses: harvardx.link/email
- HarvardX courses on edX: www.edx.org/school/harvardx
- Harvard University's online courses: online-learning.harvard.edu/
HarvardX empowers the faculty of Harvard University to create high-quality online courses in subjects ranging from computer science to history, education, and religion.

[@HarvardOnline]

Learn more in our free online course, “Contract Law: From Trust to Promise to Contract”: harvardx.link/ua5i8

[@PainandMotivation]

Thank you very much.

[@Itsaliyahha]

Thank you

[@sibghatullahseerat5509]

Absolutely interesting, thank you so much great scholar.

[@ideasink1470]

Hello. What if it was the reversed where the dealer being a regular guy, not having any knowledge about antiques sells his coins. After the purchaser inspects (as he's the expert) says its real and buys it, finds out later that it was fake. Can he sue the person that sold it to him> and is that a unilateral mistake?

[@RushilJain-si2hx]

I think similar judgement would be ruled even in your prescribed case. The dealer, having no knowledge about antiques would still be considered "innocent" in his conduct and the purchaser would have to perform the due diligence (of ensuring the quality of coin) and also assume risk of his decision to purchase after his inspection. This way, I believe that the proceeding of the deal would be exactly the same as scenario above and SAME judgement will be ruled.

[@ayushmanmishra7145]

Sir, what's the remedy here for the seller in the second case? He was innocent, yet he suffered loss. If he were to be paid some form of remuneration (damages), who would it be paid by?

[@johnrm23able]

No remedy, parties are just out of luck

[@RushilJain-si2hx]

No remedies. As said, the business is considered risky by its nature, and the seller assumes that risk when dealing in such a market. Hence, both parties were restituted to original position and no damages were awarded.

[@akshitasenthil5146]

So in the 2nd case, is it like the guy who got the coin checked won the case?

[@RushilJain-si2hx]

No, the contract was deemed void, and both parties were restituted to their original positions as before contract. Meaning the buyer got his $500 back and seller received his coin back, so think of it as nothing happened.