decided that the mistake as to the quality of the contract was sufficient to cause the contract to be
void. In Bell, the courts took a hands-off approach when it came to a mistake as to the quality of
the contract, and stressed on the proposition of not wanting to get involved in a parties
bargaining relationship, stating that even if something was unfair to the parties, it was not the
courts place to step in, but in Associated Japanese Bank, the courts were seen to take a hands-on
approach and in fact stepped in to relieve the injustices of a poor bargain, exactly what they
vowed not to do in Bell.
The dilemma further worsens, when one examines the fact that equity had established different
principles concerning common mistake, especially with regards to a common mistake as to the
quality of a contract. As mentioned before, prior to examining Great Peace, one must regard the
two conflicting decisions that led to the climax in Great Peace. These are the cases of Bell v
Lever Brothers which postulated the common law position on common mistake which has
already been discussed. We will now turn our attention to Solle v Butcher which articulated the
equitable position on common mistake.
In Solle v Butcher, A had let a flat to X at £250 per year. Both parties made a common mistake
that the flat, which was reconstructed was in essence a new flat, and that it was no longer
controlled by the Rent Restriction Acts. But the reality was that the maximum rent allowed was
really only £140. The te