Unit-III

FACTORS VITIATING CONSENT

PREVIEW

a. Coercion

b. Undue Influence

c. Fraud

d. Misrepresentation

e. Mistake
Introduction
All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of the parties competent
to enter into a contract for a lawful consideration and object. Here, we will discuss the
free consent and the elements that vitiate the free consent in a contract.

What is a free consent?

Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines “Free Consent”- In a contract,
consent is said to be free when it is not caused by one of the following elements:

a. Coercion ( Section 15);

b. Undue Influence ( Section 16);

c. Fraud( Section 17) ;

d. Misrepresentation ( Section 18); or

e. Mistake ( Sections 20-22).

So, if consent is backed by any of the above factors, then the contract is said to be
voidable.
(A) Coercion
According to Section 15 : Coercion is the committing or threatening to commit any Act
by the IPC or the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain any property to the prejudice
to any person, whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an
agreement.

Essentials Features of Coercion

(i). Committing of any acts forbidden by the IPC
(ii). Threatening to commit any Act forbidden by the IPC.
A prominent question was raised in the Madras High Court in this regard in the case of-
Chikkam Amiraju vs. Chikkam Seeshammaf, In this case, by threat of suicide, a Hindu
induced his wife and son to execute a release in favor of his brother regarding a certain
property. It was held by a majority that the threat of suicide amounting to coercion under
Section 15 and the release deed was hence voidable.
According to the Explanation of Section 15 for coercion, it is not necessary that the IPC
should be applicable at the place where the consent has been so obtained. The
Explanation expressly states that it is immaterial whether the IPC is or is not in force in
the place where coercion is employed.
Illustration: A, an Indian citizen on board an English ship on the high seas, has caused B,
another Indian, to enter into an agreement by an act amounting to criminal intimidation
under the IPC. A afterwards sues B for breach of contract in Calcutta. A has employed
coercion even though the provisions of sections 503 and 506 of IPC relating to criminal
intimidation was not in force in the place where the Act was done (Ship).
(a) Unlawful Detaining of Property: According to Section 15 coercion could also be
caused for the unlawful detaining of any property to the prejudice of any person with the
intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement. It may however be noted that
if the detention of property is not unlawful, then there is no coercion. Mothiah vs.
Muthukarupan Chetti, An agent appointed by a person refuses to hand down the books
of the principal until the principal agrees to release him from all his past liabilities. The
principal gave such release. It was held that the release was obtained by coercion and
hence not binding.
(b) Threatening to Detain any Property: Section 15 also includes threatening to detain
any property to the prejudice of any person with a view to cause to any such person to
enter into an agreement.
(c) To the prejudice of any person under Section 15: According to Section 15-the act
amounting to coercion need not necessarily be direct against the contracting party. It is
enough if the Act is to the prejudice of any person who has committed with the intention
of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
Illustration: A wrongfully confines B's son C in order to coerce B into entering into an
agreement. This will fall under Section 15.
Moreover it may not be necessary that the wrongful Act committing coercion should
proceed from the party to the contract. The principle relating to threat under the English
Common Law is known as Duress. Duress involves actual or threatened violence to the
body of the party to the contract or someone merely related to him. Thus, the common
law recognizes only a threat to a man's person and not to his goods to constitute duress.
This is different from Indian law, where Section 15 of the ICA recognizes unlawful
detention or a threat to detain property as coercion. In other words, the Indian law is
much wider than the English Law in regards to coercion and the threat relating to
detention of both man's person and property.
Leading Cases on Coercion
Chikham Amiraju vs Chikham Seshamma 1912: Husband threatened to suicide unless
wife gave property to his brother. This was held coercion.

Askari Mirza vs Bibi Jai Kishori 1912: Threatening a criminal prosecution is not
coercion per se. It could be coercion if the threat is to file false charges.

Astley vs Reynolds 1731: Plaintiff had pledged his place for $10. When he went to take
it back, pledgee asked for $10 more. He paid the additional $10, but sued to get recover it
back. It was held coercion.

Andhra Sugars vs State of AP 1968: A factory was bound to take the sugar cane from
the farmer under an act. This was not held to be coercion.
(B) Undue Influence
Section 16 of the Act defines undue influence as “a contract is said to be induced by
undue influence' where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of
the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain
an unfair advantage over the other” – vide Section 16 (1).

Essential Features:
i. A relation subsists between the parties whereby one of them is in a position to
dominate the will of the other,
ii. The dominant party uses his superior position to obtain an unfair advantage over
the other.
Situations/Cases
The question whether a party was in a position to dominate the will of the other is a
primarily a question of fact. In particular, a person is deemed to be in a position to
dominate the will of the other in the following cases:
a. Where one person holds a real or apparent authority over the other. For example –
employer-employee, master-servant.
b. Where one person stands in a fiduciary relation , that of mutual trust and
understanding, to the other.
When a person reposes confidence in another, it is expected that he will not be betrayed,
If that person betrays the confidence and trust imposed in him by virtue of the fiduciary
relationship and thereby gains an unfair advantage over the other party in any contract,
the aggrieved party has an option to avoid the contract. Typical examples of fiduciary
relationships are -Parent - child, Guardian – Ward, Doctor – patient, Solicitor – client,
Trustee – beneficial, Principal – agent. Partners inter se, Landlord – tenant.
Where one person makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is either
temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age / illness or mental or bodily
distress - vide Section 16 (2)(b)
Presumption of Law & Burden of Proof
According to Section 16 (3) the burden of approving that such a contract was not
induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person who is in a position to dominate the
will of the other party. Such an undue influence is also known as "moral coercion".
In Lancashire Loans Ltd. vs Black 1934: It was held that a daughter may not
necessarily be independent and may be under the influence of the mother.
Presumption raised in the following cases :
(a) Unconscionable Bargains: Wajid Khan vs Raja Ewaz Ali Khan 1891: An old
illiterate woman conferred upon her managing agent a big pecuniary benefit without any
valuable consideration under the guise of a trust. This was held to be under undue
influence.
(b) Inequality in bargaining power: Lloyd's Bank vs Bundy: Farmer pledged his
farmhouse for securing a loan for his son. Later bank tried to take possession of the
house. It was held that the contract might have been done under undue influence.
(c) Contracts with Pardanashin Women: A contract with a pardanashin woman is
presumed to have been induced by undue influence. However, such a woman must be
totally secluded from ordinary society. In the case of Ismail vs Amir Bibi 1902, a lady
stood as witness, put tenants, collected rents in respect of her house. She was held not a
pardanashin woman.
High rate of Interest: The mere fact that the rate of interest is very high in a money
lending transaction is not necessarily against equity and good conscience because it is
usual for money lenders to charge high rate of interest from needy borrowers.
Illustration: A applies to a banker for a loan at a time when there is stringency in the
money market. The banker declines to make loan except at an unusually high rate of
interest. A accepts the loan on their terms. This transaction is in the ordinary course of
business and the contract is not induced by undue influence.
But if the rate of interest is very exorbitant, and the Court regards the contract as of
having no conscience, in such a case it is for the creditor to prove that no undue influence
was employed.
(C) Fraud
The element of fraud in a contract vitiates the contract and such a contract by fraud is
voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. Very often facts are misrepresented, that is,
they are declared in a distorted manner. When facts are intentionally misrepresented, it is
known as fraud , which is dealt with in Section 17 of the ICA, However, unintentional or
innocent misrepresentation is not fraud. They are simply misrepresentation falling under
Section 18 of the Act. Thus, where a false statement is made intentionally, with the
knowledge that it is false, with a view to deceive the other party and thereby inducing him
into entering the contract - it is known as fraud. But when the person making the false
statement believes the statement to be true and does not intend to deceive the other party
to enter into the contract - it is known as misrepresentation. Thus it can be said that fraud
is a willful misrepresentation or a fraudulent misrepresentation and includes all the acts
committed by a person to deceive the other.
Section 17 of the Act defines fraud as _"Fraud" means and includes any of the
following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his
agents, with intent to deceive another party thereto his agent, or to induce him to
enter into the contract.
Section 17 (1): the suggestion, as to a fact of that which is not true, by one who does not
believe it to be true – is known as SUGGESTIO FALSI or suggestion of falsehood.
Section 17 (2): the active concealment of a fact by one having the knowledge or belief of
the fact – is known as SUPPRESIO VERI or suppression of a fact.
Section 17 (3): a promise made without any intention of performing it. It means a
promise made falsely with the intention of inducing the other party to make a reciprocal
promise and thereby enter into a contract.
Section 17 (4): any other act fitted to deceive.
Section 17 (5): any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.

Explanation to Section 17
This Explanation states a very important proposition of law. According to Explanation to
Section 17 - the mere silence as to a fact likely to affect the willingness of a person to
enter into a contract is not fraud. However, such silence is to be held as fraud , if the
circumstances of the case that –
 It is the duty of the person keeping silence - to speak
 That his silence in itself is equivalent to speech.
Essentials of Fraud
Analyzing the definition of fraud under Section 17, we get the following essential
elements of fraud:
 Party to the contract

The Act of fraud must be done:

 By the party to the contract himself
 With his connivance
 Or by his agent

There must be a false representation or assertion - Section 17 (1)

To constitute fraud there must be conjugation of 2 things:
• A representation or assertion of a fact which is not true and
• The person making such representation or assertion of fact does not believe it to be true.
This is what is meant by suggestion falsie or suggestion of falsehood coupled with the :
knowledge of its falsity.
There must be active concealment of fact - Section 17 (3)
By active concealment of certain facts there is an effort to see that the other party is not
able to know or discover the truth. He is made to believe something is true whereas that is
false. This is known as SUPPRESIO VERI or suppression of fact purposefully. The
implication of such active concealment is more grave where it is the duty of the person to
disclose - fiduciary relationship. Active concealment is different from passive
concealment. Passive concealment merely means silence as to material facts. However,
active concealment means making efforts to prevent the facts from reaching a party and
this is fraud.
BR Chaudhary vs IOC 2004: A dealer concealed his previous employment under govt.
to get dealership. SC allowed the contract to be terminated.
 Concealment by Mere Silence is not Fraud

Sri Krishan vs University of Kurukshetra 1976: the candidate knew that he was short
of attendance but did not write anything on the examination form. It was held that there is
no fraud because it was the job of the university to scrutinize the forms.
Illustration : B having discovered a vein of iron ore in the estate of A adopts means to
conceal and is successful to conceal the existence of the ore from A. through A's
ignorance he buys that estate at an under value.
It is a voidable contract under Section 2(i) of the Act. So A may cancel the contract
because it is a fraud committed against him by B. The fraud is a fraud of concealment of
fact.
A promise made without the intention of performing it – Section 17(3)
When a person makes a promise then it is deemed to be an undertaking by him that he
will perform the promise. According to Section 17(3) if there is no such intention to
perform the contract, at the time when the contract was made, it amounts to fraud. DDA
vs Skipper Construction Company 2000- A builder collected deposit money from more
number of people than there were flats. SC held that since the builder knew that he cannot
perform his promise and still took the money, he was doing fraud. He was held liable to
pay interest even though there was no provision of interest on deposit.
Any other Act fitted to deceive – Section 17(4)
This provision is general in nature and is intended to include other means of trick and
unfair means intended to deceive any one other than by means of suggestio falsi,
suppresio veri or a promise made without the intention to perform it. Under this Section,
any such acts will amount to fraud.
Ningawwa vs Byrappa 1968 - Husband got his illiterate wife to sign papers saying that
he was mortgaging her two lands but actually he mortgaged four. This act was obviously
done to deceive and was held to be fraud.
Any such acts or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent-Section 17(5)
According to Section 17(5) fraud includes any such acts or omission which specially
declares it to be fraudulent. For instance under the TP Act 1882, under Section 55, seller
is bound to disclose to the buyer all material latent defects in the property. Not doing so
will amount to fraud.
1. Representation must relate to a fact: The representation, assertion, intention or
suggestion under Section 17(1) must relate to a material fact. Any superfluous opinion or
exaggerated statement or flourishing description are not regarded as representation of
facts.
Illustration: A while selling rings to B says – " the rings are as good as that of Y." This is
a mere statement of opinion which cannot be regarded as amounting to fraud.
2. Wrongful Intention: To constitute a fraud it is necessary that a person should
intentionally make a false statement to deceive another party and thereby induce him to
enter into a contract. If the intention to deceive the party is absent, there is no fraud – vide
case of DERRY vs. PEEK.
.
3. The acts must have in fact, deceived the party: A mere attempt to deceive the
party is not fraud under the Contract Act unless the party is actually deceived.
Fraudulent misrepresentation must have been made with an intention to deceive.

4. The other party must suffer loss: To constitute a fraud, under the ICA, it is
necessary that the other party must have suffered some material loss as a consequence
of the deceit. Hence, there is no fraud without damage.

Mere silence / non-disclosure vis-a-vis Fraud

In order to constitute fraud there must be a false representation or assertion of a fact –
vide Section 17(1). In other words, there could be suggestio falsi coupled with the
knowledge of its falsity.
Active concealment of a fact has also been considered as amounting to fraud because
in that case there is a positive effort to conceal the truth from the other party. He is
made to believe as true that fact which is false. This is what is known as suppresio veri
– vide Section 17(2).
At the same time it may be mentioned here that Explanation to Section 17 lays down
that mere silence as to facts does not amount to fraud. It states that - mere silence as to
facts does not amount of fraud unless it is the duty of the person keeping silence to
speak or when his silence is equivalent to speech.
Thus a person is required by law to refrain from intentional or active concealments as
to facts. But it does not mean that he is to disclose all material defects of the contract to
the other party. A contracting party is under no compulsion or obligation to point out
the defects as to the subject matter of the contract to the other party.
In Shri Kishan vs. Kurushetra University, a candidate for the LLB Part!
Examination who was short of attendance did not mention that fact himself in the form.
Neither the head of the law department nor the university authorities made proper
scrutiny to discover the truth.
Held - The Supreme Court held that there was no fraud by the candidate as he merely
kept silent as to his attendance which the authorities could have discovered had proper
scrutiny been made. The university had no power to cancel the candidature of the
candidate on that ground.
Exception to the Rule – Mere Silence / Non-Disclosure Amount to Fraud
Explanation to Section 17 mentions that mere silence or non-disclosure does not
amount to fraud, other than certain statutory exceptions:
1. When there is a duty to speak keeping silence is fraud.
2. When silence itself is equivalent to speech.
1. Duty to Speak
Uberrimae Fidei: There are certain contracts which are contracts of uberrimae fidei
meaning contracts of utmost good faith. In such a type of contract it is supposed that
the party, in whom good faith is reposed, would make full disclosure of it and not keep
silent.
One instance of contract of uberrimae fidei is contract of insurance. In such a
contract, there may be certain facts which are in full knowledge of the insured or policy
holder. He must make full disclosure of such facts to the insurer or insurance company.
In V. Srinivasa Pillai vs. LIC of India, it was held in this case by the Supreme Court
that contract of insurance being one of uberrimae fidei, it is normal to expect in such a
contract utmost good faith on the part of the insured. The insured is expected to answer
certain questions by the insurer and it is his responsibility to give true and faithful
answers. If the insured has knowledge of certain facts which others cannot ordinarily
have, then he should not indulge himself in suggestio falsi or suppressio veri.
When in the case of contract of insurance, where there exists a duty to disclose,
then non disclosure of facts that are non-material to and having no bearing on the
risk undertaken by the insured, it does not render the contract voidable.
Fiduciary relationship - Another instance where a duty to disclose facts arises is
where the parties to the contract repose “trust and confidence" in the each other giving
rise to a fiduciary relationship.
lllustration: A sells a horse to B, his daughter by auction, who has just come of age.
Here the relationship between the parties would make it the duty of A to disclose that
the horse is unsound. If he does not disclose so, it would amount to fraud.
Speaking Half Truth: Subject to statutory exceptions under Explanation to Section 17
a person keeping silence but if he decides to speak, a duty arises to disclose the whole
truth. Withholding a part of the information amounts to fraud, Thus, speaking half
truths may also amount to willful misrepresentation as regards to the facts which have
not been disclosed. When there is a duty to disclose all facts, then non disclosure or
half-disclosure of facts amounts to fraud.
Statutory Disclosure: In some cases the disclosure is required by a statute. In such a
case also there arises a duty to speak.
Custom of Trade: If the usage or custom of trade requires disclosure of certain things
or known defects then non disclosure would amount to fraud. For example,
tobacco/liquor is injurious to health.
2. When Silence is Equivalent to Speech: A person who keeps silence knowing fully
well his silence is going to be deceptive - is no less guilty of fraud. Sometimes, keeping
silence as to a certain fact may create an impression as to the existence of such facts. In
such a case silence amounts to fraud.

Consequences of Fraud
According to Section 19 where a consent to an agreement is caused by fraud , the
agreement to a contract is voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so
caused by fraud. Until such time it is avoided, the contract is valid.
The party defrauded has the following specific remedies :
• To rescind the contract
• To affirm it
• Rescind and claim for damages
• Enforce principle of restitution
• Sue for specific performance
(D) Misrepresentation
When a false statement is made with the knowledge that it is false and with the
intention to deceive the other party and thereby, induce him to enter into a contract on
that basis – it is known as Fraud. When facts are intentionally misrepresented, under
Section 17, it is known as fraud.
But when the person making a false statement believes the statement to be true and
does not have the intention to mislead or deceive the other party to the contract - it is
known as misrepresentation,
If the assertion made later turns out to be untrue but at the time of making the contract
the person truly believed that the statement was true, it is known as innocent
misrepresentation, also dealt with under Section 18.
Section 18 (1) states that misrepresentation means and includes – the positive
assertion, in a manner not warranted/justified by the information of the person making
it, of that which is not true, although he believes it to be true.
Illustration: A while selling his horse to B tells him that the horse is thoroughly sound.
A believes that the horse is sound although he does not have sufficient ground to
believe so. The misrepresentation made by A falls under Section 18 (1).
Section 18 (2): It states that misrepresentation means and includes breach of duty
without an intention to receive any advantage or gain to the person committing it by
misleading another to his prejudice. In English law, such cases are called "Constructive
Fraud". In Thake vs Maurice 1986 - Husband was not informed of the risks and
failure rate of vasectomy before the operation. Later on wife became pregnant and the
hospital was held guilty of misrepresentation and was ordered to pay compensation for
all the pains and expenses of delivery.
Section 18 (3) states that if one party acting innocently causes another party to make a
mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement ( that is,
the subject matter of agreement) this is said to be misrepresentation. In Farrand vs
Lazarus 2002 - A car dealer put a notice on a car that the mileage is incorrect even
though he knew that the reading was grossly incorrect. This was held to be
misrepresentation. In R vs Kylsant 1932- Company prospectus said that company was
regularly paying dividends, which implied that is was making profit. However, it did
not say that company was making losses and dividends were being paid from war time
accumulated profits.
Illustration: Facts - A hired a ship from B which was represented to A of being not
more than 2800 tonnes. Actually the ship's capacity was 3450 tonnes. Held- that B had
made a misrepresentation acting innocently which would entitle A to avoid the contract
by reason of erroneous statement as to the capacity of the ship.
 Expression of Opinion- Merely expressing an opinion is not misrepresentation.
Bisset vs Wilkinson 1927: The seller was aware that the land was being purchased for
sheep farming and he expressed an opinion that the land could carry 200 sheep. It
turned out that the land was no suitable for sheep farming. The seller was not held
liable.

Difference between Fraud and Misrepresentation

Fraud Misrepresentation
Intention It is deliberate It is innocent

Belief When the person making the When the person making the
representation knows it to be representation, knows it to be
false. true.
Consequences The aggrieved party cannot Person can rescind the
only rescind the contract but contract but cannot claim
also file suit for damages. damages.
(E) Mistake
One of the essential elements of formation of a valid contract is that offer and acceptance
should correspond exactly. Both the parties should agree to the same thing in the same
sense – that is consensus ad idem. Sometimes, one or both parties may be working under
some misunderstanding or misconception of some fact relating to the agreement and may
even enter into a contract on that basis. Such contracts are said to be caused by mistake.
When consent of the parties are caused by mistake it is not free consent.
Types
1. Mistake of Law (Sec 21) - Not Voidable
2. Mistake of Fact
i. Bilateral (Sec 20) – Void
ii. Unilateral (Sec 22) - Not Voidable(Valid)
Mistake of Law: The validity of contract is not affected by mistake of law. Where there
is a mistake of law, the contract is binding because everybody is supposed to know the
law of the land. The maxim which applies in such a case is – IGNORANTIA JURIS
NON EXCOSAT – which means ignorance of law is not excusable.

Illustration:
A owes B Rs 1000. Both A and B mistakenly think that the debt is time barred and agree
that A may pay only Rs 900 to clear the debt. It is a mistake of law and contract to pay Rs
900 in lieu of Rs 1000 is valid.
It must be noted here that mistake of law here means the general law of the land - lex loci
- and thus a mistake of foreign law is treated as a mistake of fact. The contract in such a
case would therefore be void. In other words, the ignorance of law of the land is not
excusable whereas the law of the foreign land in excusable.
The above principle is embodied in Section 21 of ICA, states that - a contract is not
voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in India but a mistake
as to any law not enforce in India has the same effect as a mistake of fact.
2. Mistake of Fact
A. Bilateral Mistake: Section 20 of ICA deals with mistake as to matter of fact essential
to the agreement. According to this Section, where both the parties to an agreement are
under the mistake as to matter of fact essential to the agreement – the agreement is void.
Thus, a mistake will render the agreement void if the following conditions are satisfied:
 Both parties to the contract are under a mistake
 Mistake should concern a matter of fact
 The fact regarding which the mistake is made should be essential or fundamental to
the agreement.
Illustration: A and B make an agreement for the sale and purchase of a particular horse.
Unknown to the fact of both parties, the horse was dead. Both parties are under a
common mistake concerning an essential fact relating to the subject matter of the
agreement and the contract is rendered void.
Bilateral mistake is sometimes further classified into:
 Common mistake
 Mutual mistake
In common mistake both the parties commit the same mistake. Each knows the
intention of the other party and accept it but both commit the same mistake about the
underlying fundamental facts. In such a case there is no misunderstanding between the
parties. But in case of mutual mistake the parties misunderstand each other leading to
possible litigation. Such misunderstanding originates from ambiguity or uncertainty in the
offer.
B. Unilateral Mistake: In contract to bilateral mistake as envisaged under Section 20
there may also be a unilateral mistake. Mistake by one of the parties to a contract does not
normally affect the validity of the contract. The provision in this case is envisaged in
Section 22 of the ICA. Section 22 provides that a contract is not voidable merely because
it was caused by one of the parties to the contract being under a mistake as to a matter of
fact.
Illustration: A buys an old painting for Rs 5000 thinking it is an excellent piece of art.
Actually the painting is a new one worth Rs 800. A cannot avoid the contract on ground
of mistake since mere error of judgment will not make it sufficient to invalidate the
contract.
Exceptions: In case of unilateral mistake if one party to the contract is mistaken about
some fundamental fact concerning the contract, and the other party is aware of this – then
the contract may also be avoided. The general rule is that a bilateral mistake alone would
render the contract void but unilateral mistake does not invalidate the contract except
under some certain exceptions.
i. Mistake as to identity of person contracted with where such identity is essential
to the contract:
Cases of unilateral mistake are mainly concerned with mistake of one party as to the
identity of person contracted with, where such identity is essential to the contract.
For instance, where A intends to contract with B only but finds that he has contracted
with C, then there is no contract since identity of B is essential to the contract. On such
a case, notwithstanding the unilateral mistake, the contract becomes void. This was
highlighted in the case of Boulton vs. Jones. The same was followed in the case of
Cundy vs. Lindsay. Finally it may be mentioned here that the scope for mistake as to
identity is reduced where the parties are in each other's presence – vide case of Phillips
vs. Brooks.
ii. Mutual mistake as to identity of subject matter of contract:
Such bilateral mistake usually arises where one party intends to deal in a certain thing
and the other party deals in another thing. Thus where each party makes a different
mistake as to the subject matter of the contract - it results in a misunderstanding
between them.
Illustration: A agreed to buy from B cargo to arrive "EX-PEERLESS" from Bombay.
There were 2 ships of that name sailing from Bombay, one sailing in October and the
other in December. A meant the former ship and B the latter. It was held that the
contract was void.
iii. The result will be identical if the mistake was caused by the mistake of a third
party , P wrote to H inquiring the price of rifles and suggested that he might buy as
many as 50 rifles. On receipt of the reply he wired – "send 3 rifles". Due to the mistake
of the telegraph clerk, the message transmitted to H was "send the rifles" and H
dispatched 50 rifles. It was held that there was no contract between the parties.