Abstract

The concept of mistake permeates various areas of private law and performs a similar function in relieving errors in each. This article reviews the operation of the doctrine of mistake in different substantive areas of law, including contract, unjust enrichment and equity, and argues that the similarities in terms of the requirements for establishing a mistake and the role of assumption of risk in negating a mistake should not be overstated. It further argues that the distinction between gifts and bargains, as well as the proprietary consequences of equitable mistakes, makes it premature to postulate a unified doctrine of mistake.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
You do not currently have access to this article.