is no consent, not only where the intent has not been mutually communicated or implied, as is provided in the preceding paragraph, but also where it has been produced by— Error; Threats. C. C. 1779 (1772), 1791 (1785), 1792 (1786), 1847 (1841), 1850 (1844), 1860 (1854); C. N. 1109; 19 L. 362; 10 R. 65; 7 A. 59; 13 A. 477. § III. OF ERROR, ITS DIVISION AND EFFECTS. ART. 1820. [1814.]-Error, as applied to contracts, is of two kinds : C. C. 1819 (1813); 6 L. 511; 13 A. 477; 16 A. 325. ART. 1821. [1815.]-That is called error of fact, which proceeds either from ignorance of that which really exists, or from a mistaken belief in the existence of that which has none. 7 L. 554; 13 L. 249; 4 R. 290; 15 A. 268, 270. ART. 1822. [1816.]-He is under an error of law, who is truly informed of the existence of facts, but who draws from them erroneous conclusions of law. 13 A. 477. ART. 1823. [1817.]-Errors may exist as to all the circumstances and facts which relate to a contract, but it is not every error that will invalidate it. To have that effect, the error must be in some point, which was a principal cause for making the contract, and it may be either as to the motive for making the contract, to the person with whom it is made, or to the subject matter of the contract itself. C. C. 1824 (1818), 1834 (1828), 1841 (1835), 1846 (1840), 1850 (1844), 1860 (1854); C. N. 1110; 10 A. 361. § IV. OF ERROR IN THE MOTIVE. ART. 1824. [1818]-The reality of the cause is a kind of precedent condition to the contract, without which the consent would not have been given, because the motive being that which determines the will, if there be no such cause where one was supposed to exist, or if it be falsely represented, there can be no valid con sent. C. C. 1893 (1887); C. C. 1823 (1817); 4 L. 347, 352; 5 L. 114; 19 L. 140; 10 R. 65; 14 A. 659; 15 A. 268, 270; 16 A. 418; 22 A. 14. ART. 1825. [1819.]—The error in the cause of a contract to have the effect of invalidating it, must be on the principal cause, when there are several; this principal cause is called the motive, and means that consideration without which the contract would not have been made. 17 L. 445. ART. 1826. [1820.]-No error in the motive can invalidate a contract, unless the other party was apprised that it was the principal cause of the agreement, or unless from the nature of the transaction it must be presumed that he knew it. C. C. 1820 (1814); C. C. 1830 (1824); 15 L. 221; 17 L. 445. ART. 1827. [1821.]-But wherever the motive is apparent, although not made an express condition, if the error bears on that motive, the contract is void. A promise to give a certain sum to bear the expenses of a marriage, which the party supposes to have taken place, is not obligatory, if there be no marriage. ART. 1828. [1822.]-Thus, too, if a suit be brought on an obligation, purporting to have been made by the ancestor of the defendant, and, supposing it to be true, the defendant enters into a compromise or promise to pay, the compromise or promise is void, if it should be afterwards discovered that the obligation was forged. 13 A. 62. ART. 1829. [1823.]-In the same manner a compromise of a suit, and any obligation made in consequence of it, is void, if, at the time, but unknown to the parties, the suit be finally decided. But if the decision be not final, but subject to appeal or revision, the compromise is valid. ART. 1830. [1824]-A compromise also is void, where one of the parties is ignorant of the existence of a paper, which, being afterwards discovered, shows that the other had no right, and this, whether the other party knew the existence of the paper or not. C. C. 1820 (1814). ART. 1831. [1825.]-But if the compromise be of all differences generally, and there were other subjects of dispute, besides that in which the error existed, of sufficient importance to raise a presumption that, even if the error had been discovered, the compromise would still have been made, then such error shall not invalidate the contract. 9 L. 141; 13 A. 62. ART. 1832. [1826.]-In all cases, however, when the information, which would have destroyed the error, has been withheld by the other party to the contract, it comes under the head of fraud, and invalidates the contract. 15 L. 289. ART. 1833. [1827.]-Error in the motive also is shown in the case either of an insurance on property 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 annuity, it then becomes an insurance, and is valid for the same reason. 5 L. 114. SV. ERROR AS TO THE PERSON. ART. 1834. [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 always is in the contract of marriage. C. C. 1823 (1817); C. N. 180. ART. 1835. [1829.]-In contracts of beneficence, the consideration of the person is presumed by law to be the principal cause. ART. 1836. [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. 1837. [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. 1838. [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. 4 L. 456. ART. 1839. [1833.]—But if the person, who is really entitled to 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. 1840. [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 color of which such contract was made. Contracts entered into under forged or void powers or assignments, or with persons without 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. § VI. OF ERROR AS TO THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT. ART. 1841. [1835.]-Error as to the nature of the contract will render it void. The nature of the contract is that which characterizes the obli-* gation 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 no contract. C. C. 1823 (1817); 4 L. 347, 352; 6 L. 500. ART. 1842. [1836.]—Error as to the thing, which is the subject of the contract, does not invalidate it, unless it bears on the substance or some substantial quality of the thing. 1 A. 232; 16 A. 418. ART. 1843. [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. 1 A. 232. ART. 1844. [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. 1845. [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. Acts 1871, No. 87. § VII. ERRORS OF LAW. ART. 1846. [1840.]—Error in law, as well as error 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, can not 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 loss or of recovering what has been given or paid under such error. The error, under which a possessor may be as to the legality 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. C. C. 1757 (1750), 1758 (1751), 1759 (1752), 1823 (1817), 2291 (2270), 2303 (2281). 3078 (3045); C. P. 17, 18; 4 L. 456, 460; 5 L. 113; 7 L. 554; 19 L. 100; 4 R. 207; 10 A. 74; 13 A. 452; 15 A. 268, 270, 296; 16 A. 201. |