Understanding Defects of Consent in Contracts
Defects of Consent: Errors
Error of Law
An error of law involves a false or inaccurate understanding of legal reality, stemming from ignorance of a rule or its misinterpretation. This often ties to Article 8 of the Civil Code (CC). There’s a tendency not to recognize it as a defect of consent to protect the state. Articles 2297 and 2299 of the CC provide exceptions, allowing recovery of mistaken payments and clarifying donation intent.
Error of Fact
An error of fact is a false representation of a thing, fact, or person due to ignorance or mistake. This discrepancy between belief and reality occurs in fundamental errors. The doctrine suggests that a fundamental error prevents contract formation, while other errors vitiate the will. The CC regulates this in articles 1453-1455.
Essential Error (Article 1453)
- Type of contract (e.g., confusing a lease with a loan)
- Identity of the object (e.g., mistaking the substance of an object)
This error is considered so fundamental that it prevents the expression of intent, leading to absolute invalidity or relative invalidity depending on interpretation.
Substantial Error (Article 1454, Subsection 1)
This occurs when the substance or essential qualities of the object are different from what is believed (e.g., believing an object is silver when it’s another metal). Substance refers to the specific matter, while essential quality is subjective and depends on the parties’ intent. If the property lacked that quality, the person would not have contracted.
Characteristics of Essential Quality
- Subjective and case-dependent
- Determined by the parties’ intent
- Often not expressly stated in the contract
- Determined by the judge based on circumstances
Examples of Essential Qualities Error
- Error on the composition of the object
- Paternity
- Specific legal aspects
- Precious characteristics of things
Essential quality covers more cases than the doctrine of substantive error.
Effect of Material Error
Vitiates consent and results in relative nullity.
Error on Accidental Qualities (Article 1454, Paragraph 2)
An error about non-essential qualities doesn’t vitiate consent unless that quality was the primary reason for contracting, and the other party knew this.
Effects of Error on Accidental Qualities
Generally does not vitiate consent, except in the case above. Results in relative invalidity.
Error in the Person (Article 1455, Paragraph 1)
An error about the person with whom one intends to contract doesn’t vitiate consent unless the consideration of that person is the primary cause of the contract. This is relevant in personal intuition acts like family-related acts or contracts involving trust (e.g., donation, deposit, mandate).
Modern Doctrine of Error in the Person
The modern doctrine considers a broader range of objective criteria, including contract type, contractor qualities, circumstances, interests, and trust.
Relevant Qualities of a Person
These are objective traits that form a stable personality. Examples of relevant qualities include criminal convictions or contagious diseases. Irrelevant attributes include temperament, profession, intelligence, beauty, or financial situation.
Effects of Error in the Person
Usually irrelevant, but vitiates consent if the person’s consideration is the primary cause of the contract. Results in relative nullity (Article 1682 CC). If the contract is nullified, the other party is entitled to compensation if they acted in good faith.
Error in Unilateral Acts
Error can be invoked in both bilateral and unilateral acts. The CC covers cases like assignment motivated by error of fact (Article 1508), error in the probate assignee (Article 1507), and acceptance of an inheritance (Article 1234).