Name : Nguyen Thi Thuy ( Kate)

Question 1.

The issue in this case is whether Ben claims the picture from Mike and the vitiating the
contract between them .The rule of an unilateral mistake will be applies in this case .
Unilateral mistake occurs when only one party is mistake .The other party knows or
ought to have know the first partys mistake. Applying the law to the fact of the problem,
my points of view are: Ben accepted buy the picture from Mike with price was $800 .And
then brings to cleaner and restorer by Roy, discovered was painting by a famous work of
Francesco Goya the real value is $4 million .Thus , Mike refused delivery it to Ben.
According to the rule of the unilateral mistake before Mike refuses to
deliver the painting to Ben, he agreed selling the paint to Ben with the
price is $800 including Mikes cost of having the painting cleaned and
restored. So the contract was made already. At that time both of them
did not know this valuable painting. To express the promise is taking
the paint to clean and restore. Roy is a cleaner and restorer who
discovered

another

painting

beneath

the

one

which

worth

approximately $4 million. Since that Mike realized that is his mistake to

sell this painting to Ben with $800 pricing, whether Ben knew the
valuable painting before or not. Moreover, Mike has not delivered to
Ben yet.

Besides that, to vitiate the contract that may present a

contract from being enforceable. They vitiate the contract because

they deprive the contract of its effect. Thus, even if the contract has all
the essential elements, it may be declared unenforceable if any the
vitiating factors are present. The case law Chwee Kin Keong & Other
v Digiliandmall.com.Pte(2005) will support for this case.

In conclusion, Ben does not have right to claim the painting from Mike and Mike have
right to vitiate the contract in unilateral mistake.
Question 2
The causation , remoteness , and mitigation effect the issue of damages.
Causation relates to the physical link between the defendants negligence and the
claimants damage. Even if it can be show both that the defendant breached his duty of
care to the claimant and the claimant-sustained damage, the claim will not succeed unless
the damage is show to have resulted from the breach.
Causation is relevant to all torts in which proof of damage is essential .The problem is
usually discussed in detail in the context of negligence , but the principles apply more
broadly , and some of the cases referred to in this section involve claims in other torts as
well as in negligence . If the damages would still have occurred , even if the defendant
had no broken the duty care then the breach did not cause the damage .If the damage
would not have occurred but for the defendants breach of duty ,then the breach of duty is
a cause of the damage.
Like causation, the remoteness issue is relevant to all torts in which proof of damage is
essential , or in which the claimant is seeking compensation for specific losses. The loss
although caused by a consequence of the breach, to be beyond the scope of compensation
by the defendant .For damages to be recoverable ,the damage must be proximate and not
remote . The concept of remoteness helps to put a limit on the extend of damages. The
rules stated in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) has two limbs
Loss arising naturally ( Normal loss ) such loss arises in the usual course of things from
the breach itself .This type of loss is not too remote
Loss arising from special circumstances ( abnormal loss) such loss can only be claimed if
it was in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract .This
type of loss is too remote .

Mitigation simply means that a plaintiff cannot recover loss which he could have a
voided. In other words, he is obliged to minimize his loss. What should or should not
have been mitigated by reasonable action in a particular case is a question relying on the
facts of the case .Whether the law imposes upon the claimant the obligation to mitigate
on those facts in the first place, that is , has the duty arisen , is a question of law.

Reference
1. Benny S Tabalujan and Valerie Du Toin-low (2006) Singapore Business Law ,4th
Edition. Business Law in Asia:
2.http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/Courses/LA203_Torts_1/LA203_neg_causation.ht
ml [ viewed 14/8/2009]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law) [viewed 14/8/2009]