Strickland v Turner (1852) 7 Ex 208
Contract – Life Assurance – Premium – Death – Void – Annuity – Mistake – Common Mistake – Subject Matter
Facts
In this case, Strickland, the complainant, entered into a contract for annuity and life assurance on the life of Turner, with an insurance company. However, at the time the contract was made, Turner was already dead. The complainant nor the insurance company were aware of this when the contract was made and this did not have an effect on their agreement at the time of formation. It was later discovered that Turner was dead and remedy was sought.
Issues
The issue in this case concerned whether the complainant could be given a refund on his premium, due to Turner being dead at the time the contract was made. In addition, the court was to decide whether the contract between the parties was void.
Decision/Outcome
It was held by the court that the contract between the complainant and the insurance company was void. There had been a lack of consideration at the time of agreement nor enquiry into the health of Turner. This was classed as a common mistake to the contract and it was held that neither party was at fault. Thus, the complainant was entitled to receive his premium back due to this mistake. It was stated that a mistake to the subject matter of a contract must be fundamental and persuade each of the parties to enter into that agreement. Since turner was dead at the time the parties made the contract, this agreement was void.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately describes the decision in Strickland v Turner (1852) 7 Ex 208, a foundational case on common mistake at common law. The legal principles stated remain good law and the case continues to be cited as an early authority on res extincta (mistake as to the existence of the subject matter) in contract law.
The broader doctrine of common mistake at common law, of which this case forms part, was significantly developed and restated in Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161 (House of Lords) and more recently considered in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed that there is no separate equitable jurisdiction to rescind a contract for common mistake where the mistake is not sufficiently fundamental to void the contract at common law. Students should be aware of these later authorities when reading this case in context, as they define the limits of the doctrine more precisely than the 1852 decision alone. The article’s core description of the case facts, the finding of common mistake, and the remedy of premium recovery remains accurate.
