In contract law, the principle that, unless the seller has made some kind of misrepresentation, a buyer will be bound to keep what he purchased regardless of what defects he might find later.  This principle is still applicable at common law, but it has been seriously eroded by consumer protection legislation such as the Sale of Goods Act.

The plaintiff later discovered that the car’s engine leaked oil, but because of caveat emptor he was unable to get his money back from the defendant; the court said he should have asked about the condition of the engine before making the contract.

Threatening behaviour on the part of one of the parties to a contract that the courts consider compelled the other party to enter the contract against her will.  This could be by the former committing or threatening violence against the person or property of the latter or their close relatives, threatening to blackmail them, etc.  A contract entered into under duress is considered void or voidable, depending upon the seriousness of the duress.

The plaintiff was unable to enforce the contract against the defendant because the court found evidence that she had threatened to shoot the defendant unless he sold his shares to her at half their market value.

Some behaviour on the part of a party to a contract that takes unscrupulous advantage of the other party (usually sued as a defendant) to the latter’s great economic detriment.  The legal effect is to make the contract voidable.

The court found that the ship owners’ agreement to pay ten times as much as was normally charged to the tugboat to save them from colliding with other ships in the harbour during the violent storm was one made under economic duress.

In contract law, a term that is not specifically stated in the parties’ contract, either in written or oral form.  The law will consider the term to be applicable either because it is implied by statute (eg. Sale of Goods Act) or it would be understood to apply because of the reasonable person test.

When the parties agreed that the purchaser would pay $28,000 for the boat, it was an implied term that the payment would be made in Australian dollars rather than Canadian dollars because that is where the seller resided and where the boat was located.

Advice obtained from a lawyer, not acting for the other party to the contract, that determines his client made the contract of her own free will and was fully aware of its terms.  Often obtained at the request of or to protect a party who at later date could be alleged to be the stronger party in a contract of undue influence.

The bank insisted that the businessman’s wife get independent legal advice before she co-signed the personal guarantee promising to repay the bank’s loan if the businessman’s company defaulted in its payments.

In contract law, an error or misunderstanding, held by either one or both of the parties, with respect to the subject matter of the contract, the parties to it, or the terms of the contract.  The legal consequences upon the contract for mistake can vary from its being void, voidable, enforceable or rectified.

The court found a mistake had been made in the parties’ contract: the plaintiff had grounds to suppose the ship in question was leaving Bombay in October; the defendant had grounds to suppose the ship was leaving Bombay in December.

In contract law, a defence that can alleviate a party from his obligations under a contract that he signed.  Since the Marvco Color v. Harris decision, it is very limited in Canada and will only be available if the defendant can show he was deceived as to the very nature of the document that he signed, and that he was not careless when he did so.

The blind defendant successfully pleaded non est factum when the court found she signed a promissory note payable to the plaintiff, when in fact her unscrupulous niece told her it was a letter to her doctor.

A rule of interpretation in contract law that says the courts will not admit any evidence of an oral agreement if that oral agreement was made before a written agreement and contradicts or significantly varies from the terms of the written agreement.  The rule is qualified by a number of exceptions.

Because of the parol evidence rule, the plaintiff’s lawyer asked the judge to stop the defendant’s lawyer from asking questions relating to the previous agreement about the sale of the boat between the parties that did not square with what the later written agreement said.

In contract law, the legal remedy in which a court can correct some clerical error that was made in a written contract that does not reflect what the parties had previously agreed orally, so that the contract can still be enforceable between the parties.

The judge ordered rectification of the contract so that the address was changed from “2346 Barefoot Road” to “2436 Braefoot Road.”

A contract that is made to the great disadvantage of one of the parties to it because of the unconscionable (without a conscience) behaviour of the other party.  Such contracts are voidable at the option of the former if repudiated promptly.

The judge decided that the elderly pensioner’s agreement to have the roof to her house re-done by the defendant roofing company, the latter knowing full well that the work was entirely unnecessary, was an unconscionable transaction.

Behaviour on the part of a stronger or dominant party to a contract that psychologically influences the weaker party’s freedom of choice.  When a special relationship exists between the parties, the law will presume such contracts were made under undue influence, unless the stronger party can rebut that presumption.  Such contracts are voidable if repudiated promptly by the weaker party.

The agreement in which the plaintiffs transferred their house (worth $300,000) to their spiritual guru for $45,000 was one which the court found had been made under undue influence.

In contract law, a term meaning that a contract is not recognized to have had any legal validity from the very beginning; neither party can enforce it against the other.  Examples of void contracts include those which are illegal or contrary to public policy or where the parties were mistaken as to existence of the subject matter at the time the contract was made.

The defendant’s promise to pay $5,000 to the plaintiff if he torched the business competitor’s premises was not only void, it was sufficient grounds for both parties to be prosecuted in the criminal courts for conspiracy to commit arson.

In contract law, a term meaning that a contract is capable of being repudiated by one of the parties at his option, in which case the contract is unenforceable.  Examples of voidable contracts include those involving parties lacking capacity, as well as ones where a party was induced to make the contract because of the other party’s misrepresentation.

As the customer had been told by the seller that the BMW did not have any rust problems when in fact it did, her contract with the seller was voidable at her option.

A statement or representation which is not true and which was made by a party who was aware the statement was untrue, or else was recklessly careless as to whether the statement was true or not.  This kind of misrepresentation is an intentional tort entitling the plaintiff to damages.  It is also actionable as grounds for rescission or damages in contracts, depending upon whether the misrepresentation was an inducement to enter the contract or was a term of the contract.

The court found that the defendant had made a fraudulent misrepresentation when he advised the plaintiff that the SUV from Ontario did not have rust on its underside, although he was fully aware of the rust two weeks before he made the contract with her.

A statement or representation that is not true but which was not made intentionally or negligently.  Although it is not actionable as a tort, in contract law it can be grounds for the other party to the contract to obtain rescission of the contract (but not damages).

The salesperson’s statement to the buyers that the vehicle had four-wheel drive when in fact it did not was an innocent misrepresentation, in that she relied upon a misleading misprint in the sales manual for that vehicle.

A legal principle in the law of contract that says only the original parties to a contract will be bound by its terms, even if the contract might affect third parties.  There are numerous exceptions or qualifications to the rule.

Because of the privity of contract rule, the plaintiff in the Donaghue v. Stevenson case was not able to sue the manufacturer of the defective ginger beer for breach of contract; however, she was able to sue it under the tort of negligence for product liability.

A specific form of the larger tort of negligence in which the defendant makes a representation to the plaintiff that is not true; although the misrepresentation was not intentional, it was made carelessly according to the reasonable person test, and so the defendant will be liable in damages.  When made by a person in his professional capacity, it can often result in his being liable to any plaintiff who relied upon the misrepresentation to her economic detriment; in this context, it is sometimes referred to as the Hedley v. Byrne principle.  It is also actionable as grounds for rescission or damages in contracts, depending upon whether the misrepresentation was an inducement to enter the contract or was a term of the contract.

The defendant realty made a negligent misrepresentation to the plaintiffs when it advised them that the house’s foundation was structurally sound; the defendant had overlooked a surveyor’s report that indicated a problem with termites.