Hotel advertised rate by mistake... Now asking us to pay the difference!

naedanger

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Does English or Scottish law use the term at all?. The fact that USA law does is not pertinent as we are in the UK. If you are going to quote something you really should make sure it applies and do the legwork yourself. The word fanny means two totally different things in the UK/USA.

Do you think every word has a legal definition and if it is not legally defined it cannot be used?

The word "manifest" is a common word and if it does not have a special legal meaning then its common meaning will apply.

If you think the word has a special legal meaning then please post a link.

ShootForTheMoon

Thanks for the interesting discussion guys...
Isn't an e-mail this afternoon just saying that I was disappointed but understood the mistake... They've replied saying that the management have decided to honour the rate for those affected, so a win-win really, no fuss and a bargain break!!

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

Do you think every word has a legal definition and if it is not legally defined it cannot be used?

The word "manifest" is a common word and if it does not have a special legal meaning then its common meaning will apply.

If you think the word has a special legal meaning then please post a link.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ecbb773e-af73-4ac9-abe6-fbfee9151438
http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Property_and_Construction/Real_estate_briefing_expert_determination__Challenging_the_Decision
https://www.ashurst.com/publication-item.aspx?id_Content=9810

Doesn't really seem like its application in any way relates to mistakes in contract formation.

For mistakes in the forming of a contract, this link is helpful:
http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/mistake-lecture.php

Or here:
http://www.drukker.co.uk/publications/l/law-mistake-uk/#.VrN937KLSUk

You'll be hard pushed to find a lot of reference to "manifest error" in UK law given its niche meaning & application.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ecbb773e-af73-4ac9-abe6-fbfee9151438
http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Property_and_Construction/Real_estate_briefing_expert_determination__Challenging_the_Decision
https://www.ashurst.com/publication-item.aspx?id_Content=9810

Doesn't really seem like its application in any way relates to mistakes in contract formation.

For mistakes in the forming of a contract, this link is helpful:
http://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/contract-law/mistake-lecture.php

Or here:
http://www.drukker.co.uk/publications/l/law-mistake-uk/#.VrN937KLSUk

You'll be hard pushed to find a lot of reference to "manifest error" in UK law given its niche meaning & application.

OK thanks for the links.

I accept the term "unilateral mistake" covers the situation covered by the op.

[I am a surprised to see that this term includes within its definition the requirement that the other party must have known it was a mistake and have taken advantage of it. Everyday usage of the term would simply mean a mistake made by only one party.

That said I accept the legal definition is as you say it was. And given that the definition includes the requirement that the other party must have known, and taken advantage, of the mistake I can see why a "unilateral mistake" is sufficient to make a contract void.]

The links to manifest error seem to be using the everyday meaning, albeit in the context of expert determination. (I recall once being involved in a business contract where the lawyers inserted some text on manifest errors, but it is possible it was only in the context of an expert opinion, and I have forgotten the limited context.) I still don't think the meaning is that "a manifest error relates to a documentation/contract error where the 2 parties are in agreement and the contract is wrong". But I accept the meaning is not relevant to the op's case, and that the test for whether the hotel could void the contract is whether the op must have known and acted on a mistake. [That said, in practice, I am not sure there is much difference between a mistake that the op must have known was a mistake and a manifest one. However I accept where there is a difference it is the "unilateral mistake" definition that is applicable.]

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

OK thanks for the links.

I accept the term "unilateral mistake" covers the situation covered by the op.

[I am a surprised to see that this term includes within its definition the requirement that the other party must have known it was a mistake and have taken advantage of it. Everyday usage of the term would simply mean a mistake made by only one party.

That said I accept the legal definition is as you say it was. And given that the definition includes the requirement that the other party must have known, and taken advantage, of the mistake I can see why a "unilateral mistake" is sufficient to make a contract void.]

The links to manifest error seem to be using the everyday meaning, albeit in the context of expert determination. (I recall once being involved in a business contract where the lawyers inserted some text on manifest errors, but it is possible it was only in the context of an expert opinion, and I have forgotten the limited context.) I still don't think the meaning is that "a manifest error relates to a documentation/contract error where the 2 parties are in agreement and the contract is wrong". But I accept the meaning is not relevant to the op's case, and that the test for whether the hotel could void the contract is whether the op must have known and acted on a mistake. [That said, in practice, I am not sure there is much difference between a mistake that the op must have known was a mistake and a manifest one. However I accept where there is a difference it is the "unilateral mistake" definition that is applicable.]

http://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/80dwl-manifest-error-united-kingdom-would.html

Trying to explain something as niche as manifest error in layman terms can be difficult. What might just be one or two words in legalese ends up turning into several pages.

In general (at least as far as the forming of a contract goes), the law isn't concerned with whether you get value for money. There are also general "principles" in law that you shouldn't profit from anothers mistake. I suspect that is partly why a distinction is made.

Of course not all mistakes will void a contract. But if the mistake is a unilateral one, then its void ab initio.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

http://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/80dwl-manifest-error-united-kingdom-would.html

Trying to explain something as niche as manifest error in layman terms can be difficult. What might just be one or two words in legalese ends up turning into several pages.

In general (at least as far as the forming of a contract goes), the law isn't concerned with whether you get value for money. There are also general "principles" in law that you shouldn't profit from anothers mistake. I suspect that is partly why a distinction is made.

Of course not all mistakes will void a contract. But if the mistake is a unilateral one, then its void ab initio.

OK. I think I get it. A manifest error, in English law, is one that can be seen to be wrong as a matter of fact, and a judgement (no matter how extreme) could not be regarding as a manifest error.

So if a expert surveyor said Buckingham Place would be worth £1.50 on the open market that would not be a manifest error. But if he said it was worth £100m at 1/1/2015 and would now be worth 5% more, giving £200m, then the figure of £200m is a manifest error because £100m plus 5% is not £200m as a matter of fact, not involving judgement.