CONSENT be, ae 149 ay similar is the position whe; a rally possible. For instance, A aareesetormanece Of the contract is not Heir it turns out that A is himself already ake eq se, @ fishery from no interest which could be transferred to A. it foot wolfe and B has As, sperionm this contract. The agreement vat 20% legally possible fo ns » mistake, is void.5! ‘ing been entered into under mistake, the ies i Ree aenee oF those as ancorPorate such terms in their contract that the. pel i se terms is not physically possible, the agreement would be void. In Sheilh Brothers Ltd. y. Ochswer3! A'contracied with B to grant him a licence to cut, process and manufacture sisal rowing on thay a's land. B agreed that he would process sisal and deliver to i eae hy of si bre anufactured by him, every month. It was found Vbey that the leaf potential ‘of the land was insufficient for fulfilling contractual Uples requirement, i.e., producing 50 tons of sisal fibre per month. As such, the Lig performance of promise by B was physically impossible. The Privy Council mmzgy; decided the case on the basis of the provisions contained in section 20, idenjy Indian Contract Act and held that the agreement was void because of mutual ret ng mistake, YS} IM, Mistake as to title p81) Sometimes the parties may be labouring under a mutual mistake as to the title to the goods sold. The buyer may already be the owner of what ch the seller purports to sell. In fact, there is nothing which the seller has to ing ‘transfer. The transfer of ownership is intended but the same is impossible owt! as the buyer is already the owner. Such an agreement is void due to mutual ges! mistake. ‘The position in this case is similar to the one where the fot} subject-matter, unknown to the parties, is not in existence. 2% In Cooper v. Phibbs,® A agreed to take a lease of a fishery from sit B. Unknowir tarball the parties, A was already tenant for life of the fishery se tights and B had no title to the same, The agreement was set aside on the Sound: of comiiion mistake, co” N. Mistake as to promise the Tf there is a mistake because of s Teal intention which was there in U , ‘Bénent would be void. In Hartog v- ; wa intact for the sale of 30,000 pice! f_Argentine ai the '0 price or ieoe™ basis, and that was in accor Mal trade pelice. “the satis by misiake in the offer stipulated teint certain rate "per pound” instead of "per piece”. ‘A pound on at : 49. : Cuoper v. Phibbs, 1867) LR. 2 Wile | on 2 (aT M Phibbs,. 1B6D rom the Court of Appeal for Ease ry, . ‘Nee un oH L (a fates "Clifford, (1876) 3 Ch. D. 779: Allcort 4, Males, (1896). 2. Ch. 369. - 1939) 3 Al ER. 566. of which the promise does not reflect he proposed agreement, such an Colins & Shields,“ there was 2 5