Void Contract CASES
In English law, a void contract is an agreement with no legal effect from its inception, meaning it cannot be enforced by any party.
Definition and Principles
A void contract lacks fundamental elements required for validity, such as lawful purpose or certainty of terms, rendering it legally nonexistent from the outset.
Common Causes
- Illegality: Contracts involving illegal activities.
- Uncertainty: Essential terms too vague or unclear.
- Lack of Capacity: Parties lacking legal capacity, e.g., due to age or mental incapacity.
- Mistake: Fundamental errors making mutual understanding impossible.
Legal Consequences
- No party can enforce or derive rights from a void contract.
- No obligation to perform exists, and parties are restored, as far as possible, to their pre-contractual position.
Practical Importance
Recognising void contracts helps parties ensure agreements meet necessary legal standards, avoiding unenforceable transactions and associated risks.
Home » Void Contract
An agreement was made for cotton arriving on the ship 'Peerless' from Bombay. Unknown to the parties, two ships of that name sailed from Bombay months apart. The court held that as the parties meant different ships, there was no consensus, and therefore no binding contract. Facts The claimant, Raffles, agreed to sell 125 bales of Surat cotton to the defendants, Wichelhaus & Anor. The written agreement specified that the cotton was ‘to arrive ex “Peerless” from Bombay’. However, there were two ships named ‘Peerless’ sailing from Bombay: one which sailed in October and another which sailed in December. The
Plaintiffs sold a car to a rogue impersonating another person, accepting his cheque only after verifying the identity in a directory. The rogue sold the car to an innocent defendant. The court held the contract was void due to mistake of identity. Facts The plaintiffs, three elderly ladies, advertised their car for sale. A rogue, introducing himself as ‘Hutchinson’, offered to buy it for £717. When he produced a chequebook, one of the plaintiffs stated they would not accept a cheque and the deal was off. To persuade them, the rogue gave his full name as P.G.M. Hutchinson and an
A rogue, Blenkarn, impersonated a reputable firm to fraudulently obtain handkerchiefs from Lindsay & Co. He then sold them to an innocent third party, Cundy. The House of Lords held that no contract ever existed between Lindsay and the rogue, meaning title never passed. Facts The case concerned a quantity of linen handkerchiefs ordered from the respondents, Lindsay & Co., who were manufacturers in Belfast. The order came from a fraudulent individual named Alfred Blenkarn, who was operating from a room he had rented at 37 Wood Street, Cheapside. Blenkarn intentionally signed his correspondence in a manner that made his
A contract was made for the sale of a cargo of corn believed to be in transit. Unbeknownst to both parties, the corn had already deteriorated and been sold. The House of Lords held the contract was void as its subject matter did not exist. Facts A contract was made in London for the sale of a cargo of Indian corn, which both parties believed was being shipped from Salonica to the United Kingdom. However, prior to the date of the contract, the cargo had begun to ferment and deteriorate. The master of the ship lawfully sold the corn at
