Error as a Defect in a Declaration of Intent
The institution of error as a defect in a declaration of intent constitutes a fundamental issue in civil law, bearing immense significance for the security of legal transactions. Pursuant to Article 84 of the Polish Civil Code, a party who has a reasonable basis to assert that their legal decision was made under the influence of error may evade the legal effects of such a decision—but only if strictly defined conditions are met. Numerous cases concerning error are analyzed in both case law and legal doctrine. The purpose of this article is to provide a detailed, comprehensible, and practical discussion of the five most important problems, illustrated by examples from judicial decisions and an analysis of the reasons why courts may or may not recognize a particular error as material.
1. Types of Error – How Do Courts Approach Classification?
In accordance with Article 84 § 1 of the Civil Code, a declaration of intent made under the influence of an error as to the substance of the legal act—understood as a mistaken conception of reality or ignorance thereof—may be set aside, provided that the error is material. Judicial practice indicates that the following types of error are most frequently deemed worthy of protection:
- Error as to the subject matter of the transaction (e.g. Supreme Court, V CSK 385/12 – the purchaser believed he was acquiring an independent premises but, in fact, acquired a share in real property).
- Error as to essential qualities of a thing (e.g. Supreme Court, II CK 3/05 – the purchase of a car with significant technical defects concealed by the seller).
- Error as to the legal status of a thing (e.g. Court of Appeal in Warsaw, VI ACa 1590/15 – the belief that the acquired property was unencumbered, whereas it was subject to encumbrances).
Whether a court will acknowledge a given error depends on whether the mistake concerns essential elements of the legal act, its subject, or circumstances which are of vital significance to the party.
2. The Criterion of Materiality of Error – What Determines It?
Materiality of error, as a prerequisite for the avoidance of the effects of a declaration of intent, is assessed by the court in each individual case. The criterion is both subjective and objective: would a reasonable person, in the position of the party, have entered into the legal act had they been aware of the true circumstances? Moreover, did the particular aspect in question have genuine, material significance for the party? For example:
- In the Supreme Court judgment, III CSK 22/15, the purchaser of a flat was unaware of a mortgage encumbrance—this was deemed a material error; knowledge of the true state would have resulted in the party refraining from the transaction.
- Court of Appeal in Warsaw, VI ACa 1590/15: error as to the absence of encumbrances on the property—had the party known the truth, they would not have entered into the agreement.
- An example where materiality was not established: Supreme Court, I CSK 666/12 – an error regarding peripheral details, such as the color of car upholstery where the party could have independently verified the matter before signing the contract.
Judicial practice confirms that not every error is "material"—the court will also consider whether the party exercised due diligence.
3. Error Induced by Deceit – Scope of Protection and Examples
If the error was induced deceitfully by the other party, the scope of protection is broader. Deceit comprises not only active misrepresentation but also the deliberate concealment of material circumstances. For instance, intentionally failing to disclose to the purchaser that the property had previously been flooded, despite knowing that fact's materiality for the buyer (Supreme Court, I CKN 105/99). In another case, where an intermediary concealed legal defects of a property in brokerage documentation, the court held that the induced error justified avoidance of the contract irrespective of the materiality of the mistake (Supreme Court, IV CSK 250/12).
It is worth noting that deceit affords automatic protection to the injured party, even if the error concerned a gratuitous act or less material circumstances.
4. Knowledge of the Error by the Other Party – Conditions for Ineffectiveness of the Declaration
For the avoidance of the effects of a declaration made under the influence of error to be effective, the error must generally have been caused by the other party or, at a minimum, the other party must have known or could easily have known of the error (Article 84 § 1 of the Civil Code). In practice, where a seller did not correct a buyer’s mistaken belief regarding the existence of a convenient access road to property—knowing that it was a key factor for the counterparty—such an error is deemed justified and allows for effective avoidance of contract (Supreme Court, V CKN 1732/00).
The court also examines whether, in the ordinary course of events, the party should have realized the counterparty’s error. Particular protection arises where the other party exploits an informational advantage.
5. Examples of Recognized and Unrecognized Errors
An error as to the finality of an administrative decision conditioning the validity of a transaction will, with high probability, be accepted by the court as a basis for avoidance of the effects of a legal act, because the real legal situation was otherwise and thus the contract was defective (Supreme Court, II CSK 112/16).
Similarly, an error in the purchase of shares in a company, arising from a misunderstanding of the statutory provisions regarding share privileges, may be recognized as a ground to avoid the effects of a legal act (Court of Appeal in Warsaw, VI ACa 754/16).
Conversely, where a purchaser was mistaken as to the color of upholstery—a circumstance that could have been independently verified—the court held that such a failing did not concern essential content of the transaction and resulted from the party’s own negligence, and thus does not benefit from legal protection (Supreme Court, I CSK 666/12).
Error as a defect in a declaration of intent is an area where legal protection is closely linked with the assessment of the rationality and diligence of the parties' conduct. The court will examine whether the error concerned a genuinely material circumstance, whether the party acted with due diligence, and whether the other party was aware or ought to have been aware of the mistake. Particular protection is afforded where the error was induced by deceit. Proper distinction of these scenarios and effective legal argumentation allows for the safeguarding of the interests of the aggrieved party in civil law relations, while also fostering prudence in making declarations of intent. Article 84 of the Civil Code is intended to ensure a balance between the security of transactions and protection against the consequences of material, unintended mistakes.
The key legal effects of mistake in a declaration of intent include the possibility to invalidate or avoid the consequences of a legal act, provided certain strict conditions are met. If a party made a declaration under a material error concerning the substance of the transaction, and that error significantly affected the decision to act, the law may permit the party to evade the legal consequences of the declaration.
Overview of Legal Effects
Avoidance of Legal Effects: If the error is material and concerns essential terms, the mistaken party may avoid (rescind) the legal consequences of their declaration of intent, making the transaction voidable rather than absolutely void.
Requirement for Materiality: Only subjectively and objectively significant errors—that is, those that would have deterred a reasonable person from making the declaration—are sufficient to form the basis for legal relief.
Role of Other Party’s Knowledge or Inducement: Avoiding the effects of a declaration made to another party is possible if the error was caused by that party, or if that party knew or easily could have known about the error.
Time Limits and Requirements: The right to avoid often must be exercised in writing and within a strict statutory time frame (e.g., one year from discovering the error in Polish law).
Limitation on Avoidance Due to Own Negligence: Relief will not be granted if the mistaken party acted recklessly or failed to exercise due care when entering into the transaction.
Effects on Third Parties: In some cases, third party rights may block rescission if the transaction has progressed and a third party acquired rights in good faith.
Deceit or Fraud: If the mistake was deceitfully induced, the protections for the mistaken party are broader, allowing avoidance even for less significant errors.
The legal effect of a mistake thus centers on preventing a party from being bound by a declaration of intent made under a material, consequential error, as long as statutory safeguards are met and the interests of other parties are not unjustly prejudiced.