Page images
PDF
EPUB

ART. 1826.-In all cases, however, when the information, which would have destroyed the error, has been withheld by the other parly to the contract, it comes under the head of fraud, and invalidates the contract.

ART. 1827.- Error in the motive also is shown in the case either of an insurance on properly or an annuity on lives. If the property be lost, or the life be at an end, at the time of making the contract, there is no obligation, unless, in the case of the insurance, it be expressly stipulated that the insurer takes the risk of those events, from a period prior to the contract. If the same express stipulation take place in the case of the annuily, it then becomes an insurance, and is valid for the same reason.

[ocr errors][merged small]

ART, 1828.-Error as to the person, with whom the contract is made, will invalidate it, if the consideration of the person is the principal or only cause of the contract, as it is always in the contract of marriage.

ART, 1829.-In contracts of beneficence, the consideration of the person is presumed by law to be the principal cause.

ART. 1830.-In onerous contracts, such as sale, exchange, loan for interest, letting and hiring, the consideration of the person is by law generally presumed to be an incidental cause, not a motive for a contract,

ART. 1831.—There are exceptions to the rule contained in the last preceding article.

If, from the nature of the onerous contract, it results that any particular skill or quality be required in its execution, which the party, with whom the contract is made, is supposed to possess, then the consideration of the person is presumed to be the principal cause, and error as to the person invalidates the contract. Thus, if intending to employ an architect of great eminence, the party addresses himself by mistake to one of the same name, who has little or no skill, the promise made to him for compensation is void; but if any thing be done by the person thus employed, who was ignorant of the mistake, a compensation, proportioned to his service, is due.

ART. 1832.-Error as to the quality or character in which the party acts, as well as a mistake as to the person himself, invalidates a contract, when such a quality or character is the principal cause of the agreement. Thus, a compromise with one, who is supposed to be the heir of a deceased creditor of the party contracting, is void, if he be not really the heir.

ART. 1833.—But if the person, who is really entitled lo the quality assumed by the one with whom the contract is made, has contributed to the error by his neglect or by design, it will not vitiate the agreement. And in the case above stated, a payment to, or a compromise with one,

whom the true heir suffered to remain in possession of the inheritance, and to act as heir, without notice, would be valid.

ART. 1834.-Contracts, which could only be made by persons possessing certain powers, either delegated by contract, given by virtue of any private or public office, or vested by the operation of law, are also void, when there is error as to the character, quality, or office, under colour of which such contract was made. Contracts entered into under forged or void powers or assignments, or with persons withont authority assuming to act as public or private officers, are governed by this rule. Contracts, however, made in the name of another, under void powers, will be valid, if ratified by the principal, before the other contracting party has signified his dissent to the agreement.

S VI.

of Error as to the Nature and Object of the Contract.

ART. 1835.- Error as to the nature of the contract will render it void.

The nature of the contract is that which characterises the obligation which it creates. Thus, if the party receives property, and from error or ambiguity in the words accompanying the delivery, believes that he has purchased, while he who delivers, intends only to pledge, there is not contract.

ART. 1836,-Error as to the thing, which is the subject of the contract, does not invalidate it, unless it bear's on the substance or some substantial quality of the thing.

ART. 1837.-There is error as to the substance, when the object is of a totally different nature from that which is intended. Thus, if the object of the stipulation be supposed by one or both the parties to be an ingot of silver, and it really is a mass of some other metal that resembles silver, there is an error bearing on the substance of the object.

ART. 1838.-The error bears on the substantial quality of the object, when such quality is that which gives it its greatest value. A contract relative to a vase, supposed to be of gold, is void, if it be only plated with that metal.

ART. 1839.-Error as to the other qualities of the object of the contract, only invalidates it, when those qualities are such as were the principal cause of making the contract.

[ocr errors]

Errors of Law. ART. 1840.--Error in law, as well as crror in fact,

invalidates a contract, where such error is its only or principal cause, subject to the following modifications and restrictions :

1. Although the party may have been ignorant of his right, yet if the contract, made under such error, fulfilled any such natural obligation as might from its nature induce a presumption that it was made in consequence of the obligation, and not from error of right, then such error shall not be alleged to avoid the contract. Thus, the natural obligation to perform the will of the donor, prevents the donee from reclaiming legacies or gifts he has paid under a testament void only for want of form;

2. A contract, made for the purpose of avoiding litigation, cannot be rescinded for error of law;

3. Error of law can never be alleged as the means of acquiring, though it may be invoked as the means of preventing a loss or of recovering what has been given or paid under such crror. The error, under which a possessor may be as to the illegality of his title, shall not give him a right to prescribe under it;

4. A judicial confession of a debt shall not be avoided by an allegation of error of law, though it may be by showing an error of fact;

5. A promise or contract, that destroys a prescriptive right, shall not be avoided by an allegation that the party was ignorant or in an error with regard to the law of prescription;

6. If a party has an exception, that destroys the natural as well as the perfect obligation, and, through error of law, makes a promise or contract that destroys such exception, he may avail himself of such error; but if the exception destroys only the perfect, but not the natural obligation, error of law shall not avail to restore the exception.

S VIII.

Of the Nullity resulting from Fraud. ART. 1841.-Fraud, as applied to contracts, is the cause of an error bearing on a material part of the contract, created or continued by artifice, with design to obtain some unjust advantages to the one party, or to cause an inconvenience or loss to the other. From which definition are drawn the following rules:

1. Error is an essential part of the definition, an artifice that cannot deceive, can have no effect in influencing the consent, and cannot injure the validity of the contract;

2. The error must be on a material part of the contract, that is to say, such part as may reasonably be presumed to have influenced the party in making it; but it needs not be the principal cause of the contract, as it must be in the case of simple error without artifice;

3. A false assertion as to the value of that which is the object of the contract, is not such an artifice as will invalidate the agreement, provided the object is of such a nature and is in such a siluation that he, who is induced to contract by means of the assertion, might with ordinary attention have detected the falsehood; he shall then be supposed to have been influenced more by his own judgment than the assertion of the other;

4. But a false assertion of the value or cost, or quality of the object, will constitute such artifice, if the object be one that requires particular skill or habit, or any difficult or inconvenient operation to discover the truth or falsity of the assertion. Sales of articles, falsely asserted to be composed of precious metals, sales of merchandize by a'false invoice, of any article by a false sample, of goods in packages 'or bales, which cannot without inconvenience be unpacked or inspected, or where the party

a

a

« PreviousContinue »