Anyone Know Of A Law Or Case In Which A Party Made A Mistake By Sending Wrong Information

[Nemetos]

I'm searching for a law that's about the consequence of using a messenger to bring across your will/statement to another party. When that messenger mutilates the message, like instead of saying i'll pay 10 pounds for that, that messenger brings the message across like: I'll pay 15 pounds. Can the receiver of that message actually bind the sender, eventhough the messenger made the mistake? Is there any such law or known case law?

[Buenchico]

A decision in the situation you describe would depend upon the relationship of the party engaging the services of the messenger to that messenger.

For example, in the days of telegrams, if a telegram operator sent the message "I agree to pay £1000" instead of "I agree to pay £100", the sender of the telegram could clearly not be compelled to pay the higher price as the telegram operator was not authorised to act as the agent of the sender.

However where a messenger has either actual or apparent authority to act as the sender's agent, then a contract to pay the higher figure may be ruled to be binding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_in_English_law

[Peter Pedant]

agree BC - that is is covered in English Law under the law of agency.

[Peter Pedant]

and in the article, there absolutely zillions of articles...
BAILII is a free law site and you wil lbe able to find about 50% of the cases on it

the situation you refer to may well be covered by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_and_West_Building_Society_v_Mothew

My guess and it is no more than that - is that the mutilated higher price is enforced and then you have to recover the difference from the agent

Otherwise - everyone would employ agents and then say oops I want to renegotiate....and that would allow them always to revisit a fixed contract

The other thing which is not a matter of law but is a matter of business is whether you wish to be saddled with a reputation for liking renegotiation.
You presumably have made sure the other party is not er making it up.
I like written notes for this sort of thing....

read Glazer's obituary in today Times and Telegraph

[Nemetos]

Thank you very much for your answers! I really appreciate your time and effort to help me with this matter. If I understand correctly, a telegram opperator would act as an agent, but as long as that agent has no authority given by it's sender, it's acts aren't able to bind the sender?
Should I see it then that when a company uses a telegram to send a message it automatically authorizes the opperator or am I mistaken?
I am asking about this because I'm comparing it to a Dutch Law. 3:37 lid 4 BW.

[Peter Pedant]

um no

I think both BC and I thought you were in business....

I am not sure if the telegraph operator is your agent - you certainly havent contracted with him to be so.
In English Law - contracts go around as offers, acceptance and consideration, and the discussion would centre on whether both sides had in their minds the same offer. (nothing to do with agency )

In one exam we were asked to discuss whether a telegraphed acceptance was an acceptance if the ink in the reservoir had run out so there was not record... (1973) I can remember what the answer was.

There is one case where someone bids for kapok and the other thinks he is selling coffee beans...I think their Lorsdships decided there was no contract on that one....

[Peter Pedant]

It appears to be unilateral mistake and is exhaustively listed here
including the kapok case:
http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/Mistake%20Cases.pdf