House of Lords established restrictive approach to common mistake, holding that mistake must relate to fundamental assumptions underlying the contract to void it.

A constructive trust arose where money was paid twice by mistake, creating equitable proprietary interest from the moment of mistaken payment.

This case established that a contract may be void for mistake where parties use ambiguous terms with different meanings, preventing the formation of genuine agreement. It demonstrates that mutual mistake about fundamental terms can negate contractual consensus.

Established the doctrine of equitable mistake allowing rescission where common mistake does not void contract at law but makes it unconscionable to enforce.

A controversial Court of Appeal decision that found a face-to-face contract void for mistake as to identity. The court distinguished Cundy v Lindsay and allowed sellers to recover their car from an innocent purchaser.

The Court of Appeal restored orthodoxy by holding that face-to-face contracts are presumed valid and only voidable for fraud, not void for mistake as to identity. This decision effectively overruled the approach in Ingram v Little.

A leading case on mistake as to identity in contract formation. The House of Lords held that no contract existed where one party intended to deal only with a specific person but was deceived about the other party's identity.

A landmark case establishing that contracts for the sale of goods that have perished unknown to both parties are void for common mistake. The buyer was not liable to pay for corn that had already perished at sea.

The House of Lords confirmed that the distinction between written and face-to-face dealings remains crucial for identity mistakes. Written hire-purchase agreements made in the name of a real person who never consented are void, while face-to-face contracts are merely voidable.

A director who negligently signed insurance forms without reading them breached his duty of care. However, the court exercised statutory discretion to relieve him from liability.

Medical error of judgment is not automatically negligence.

Oscar Chess v Williams established the crucial distinction between representations of fact and representations of opinion in contract law. The case determined that a statement about a car's age made by a private seller who genuinely believed it to be true was an opinion rather than a misrepresentation, protecting innocent parties from liability.

A defendant killed his friend during a drunken fight, claiming self-defence. The Court of Appeal held that voluntary intoxication cannot support a claim of self-defence, even for basic intent crimes.