Agreements to agree are uncertain. No implied duty to negotiate in good faith.

Parties negotiating and had not reached agreement on essential terms. Performance had been requested, however, and goods had been delivered. The judge allowed recovery on a quantum meruit (reasonable value) on a restitutionary basis.

No contract due to uncertainty of terms, but there can be recovery of reasonable value (not any contract price) in some circumstances for performance requested and received.

Two ships named Peerless sailing from Bombay. Each party thought contract was for different Peerless. Objectively it was not possible to say which was intended. No contract.

Mutual (cross-purposes) mistake and not possible to say which party’s interpretation is the more reasonable, then there is no contract.

Purchase of ‘oats’. D wanted ‘old’ oats and P was selling ‘new’ oats. Held: the contract was valid as there was no misrepresentation or term describing the oats.

The mistake must relate to a term of the contract and not to a collateral matter (quality of the goods). The parties were agreed on sale and purchase of ‘oats’.

Rogue ordered goods by post pretending to be another respectable firm so that the goods were obtained on credit. Rogue sold the goods to innocent third party purchaser. HL held contract was void for mistake as to identity.

Identity was of crucial importance to making this contract by post. The offer to contract would be made only to the person named in the written contract so that only that person could accept it.

At car dealership the rogue pretended to be someone else (having stolen their identity documents). The name of the real person was used on copy of finance agreement. HL held the finance contract was void. It was a written contract rather than face-to-face.

Most important decision on principles governing identity mistakes. Considered to be written contract so that only the person named could accept the offer of credit. The innocent third party purchaser lost out.