Haji Abdul Rahman Allarakhia v. Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Co. [ILR (1892) 16 Bom 561] In this case, the plaintiffs chartered a steamboat to depart from Jedda. The defendant had no such conviction and met only with regard to the English date. The applicants later found that their faith was erroneous within a maximum of fifteen days after the Hajj case on another day and, on that basis, they summoned the defendants for correction. The Tribunal decided that this was a unilateral error and that the applicants were not entitled to compensation. However, it should be borne in mind that there is no contract in areas where the error, even if it is only a party, leads to the cancellation of consent. The Latin maxim ignorantia juris non excusat means that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Therefore, in accordance with section 21 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract cannot be classified as countervailable because the parties have misunderstood the legislation in force in India. Therefore, the parties cannot appeal because they were not familiar with Indian law.

For example, Ankita agreed to buy a car in Prankur, based on his letter, in which the price quoted was 50,000 lakhs instead of 5 due to a typo. This agreement is deemed invalid due to an error in the quantity of the object. Normally, a unilateral error does not invalidate a contract. [7] Traditionally, it is Caveat Emptor (let the buyer be careful) and according to customary law Caveat Venditor (let the seller be careful). These categories of errors also exist in the United States, but it is often necessary to identify whether the error was an “error of decision” which is an error of law (in the face of two known decisions that make the wrong one) or an “ignorant error” that is not aware of the real state of affairs. In bell v Lever Brothers Ltd[9] of the House of Lords, it was found that an ordinary error can only annul a contract if the error of subject matter was sufficiently fundamental to distinguish its identity from the contractual identity, which made it impossible to perform the contract. In the case of Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh (1990), an illiterate girl crossed her imprint on two documents and thought that both should offer some possessions to their daughters. .

. .