Course Title: Legal Aspects of Business

Course Instructor: Dr. Aaliyah Siddique

Continuous Evaluation No. 1

Continuous Evaluation Title: Assignment

(Eg. Assignment/Case Analysis/Project/Poster Presentation/Case Study, etc)

Date of Allotment: 17/12/19 Date of Submission: 04/01/2020

Type of Assignment: Individual

(Individual/Group)

Student PRN Number:19021241035

Student PRN Number:

Student PRN Number:

Declaration:
I declare that this continuous evaluation component is my/our original work. I/we have not
copied from any source or any other students work. We have acknowledged the source, if any
content is used in completion of this continuous evaluation component. I/we are responsible
for any discrepancies/unfair means content/copied material presented in the assignment/case
analysis.
Title: Mistake can make a contract void.

Facts of the Case:

The plaintiff owns a biscuit factory. He wanted a good quality wheat flour in order to produce
good quality of biscuits. The defendant is supplier of good quality wheat. The plaintiff
required a bulk quantity of wheat for the biscuit production. He contacted defendant. The
plaintiff and defendant made a contract which stated that defendant will supply 100 tons of
Sharbati wheat so that plaintiff could produce quality biscuits and sell them in the market.

Issue:
The plaintiff began to claim damages against defendant. The plaintiff claimed damages for
breaking the contract of supplying required quantity of wheat. The wheat did not reach to the
plaintiff’s factory, Due to which he suffered from major loss. As there was unavailability of
the raw material, the biscuits were not produced and losses occurred to plaintiff. The plaintiff
began to claim damages against defendant. The defendant stated that they did not have
accountability to pay damages for breaking of the contract as it was void by mistake that the
truck by which the raw material met an accident and the raw material was stolen by people
travelling on highway. The defendant also stated that there was no breaching of contract by
them as the quality wheat was sent by them but the plaintiff still claimed damages against the
defendant.

Probable judgement:
It can be clearly seen that the contract made between the plaintiff and the defendant was not
breached by the defendant. This can be interpreted because the wheat was sent by the
defendant and by doing this we can say that the contract was not broken by him. But, the
plaintiff was claiming damages for the loss that had occurred to him as the raw material was
not provided.
Here, there was no fraud or misinterpretation was made. Neither plaintiff nor the defendant
can be said wrong. So it could be said that the contract is void. This is because nobody was
responsible for whatever has happened.

Reference:
Couturier v Hastie