ABSTRACT
We have already discovered that, if two people appear, according to an objective test, to have intended to reach an agreement supported by consideration, they are bound by it. But in certain limited circumstances the courts have been prepared to set contracts aside on the basis that there is no true agreement because one or both of the parties were mistaken about something which strikes at the root of the contract. However, the mistake doctrines discussed in this chapter remain narrow despite the attempts of some members of the judiciary to expand them. In part this is because the judiciary has expressed discomfort with an expansive doctrine aimed at setting contracts aside. They have preferred instead to see themselves primarily as upholders of agreements and expectations.
