This course explores the legal issues that arise when there is a mismatch between intent and indication in the course of a communication, the causes of these issues, and how to prevent disputes arising from misunderstandings.
‘Expression of intent’ is a legal act in which the expressor displays his or her inner intentions to the outside world, and produces certain legal effects through the process of intent to effect, intent to display, intent to act, and then the act of display. These legal acts occur frequently in daily life, and their process and results have important effects on many people.
For example, let’s take a look at the process of expressing intention by assuming a situation where A wants to buy a piece of land owned by B because he wants to build a cottage. A’s desire to build a cottage is a “motive”. A’s decision to buy B’s land because of this motivation is an ‘effect intention’. Furthermore, A’s intention to convey this intention to B is the ‘manifestation intention’, and the intention or awareness of the act of writing a contract, which is one of the ways to convey the intention to buy the land, is the ‘act intention’. Finally, the act of signing a contract to purchase land based on this intention is the act of signing.
In the process of expressing intention, there is no problem if the intention and the indication match. However, when the intention and the indication do not coincide, the same legal act can be interpreted differently depending on the nature of the intention. There are three main perspectives on the nature of expressions: intentionalism, indicationism, and effectualism. Intentionalism identifies the essence of a communication as the effective intention of the communicator, i.e., the sincerity of the communicator. However, taking an intentionalist view may lead to the problem that the communicator’s intention is protected, but the other party’s trust is not. Therefore, in order to protect the other party’s trust in the signer’s signing behavior, indicationism identifies the essence of communication as the signing behavior. On the other hand, there is a school of thought that sees the intention and the sign as one and the same, and that both are elements of communication, known as effectualism. This rejects the traditional perception of a dichotomy between intention and sign. According to effectuationism, the act of signing is not merely an external manifestation of the intention, but completes the intention and gives it legal effect.
A typical example of a mismatch between intention and indication is misrepresentation by mistake. The basic types of mistake can be categorized into ‘mistake of motive’, ‘mistake of content’, and ‘mistake of indication’ depending on which stage of the communication process the mistake occurs, such as the decision of the effective doctor, the understanding of the indication, or the act of indication. The first is a misperception of motive, which is when a person misperceives a meaningful situation at the decision-making stage of the self-effect decision-making process. An example of this is when a person wants to buy a gold ring but mistakenly thinks a plated ring is a gold ring. A content misunderstanding occurs when the signifier performs a sign behavior as intended, but misunderstands the meaning of the sign behavior at the comprehension stage. For example, a gold ring is marked with a price of $100, but a person mistakenly believes that euros and dollars are the same currency and buys the gold ring for 100 euros. Misrepresentation is the act of making a representation that is different from what the maker intended to represent. For example, a person mistakenly indicates 100,000 won in a contract of sale as 10,000 won when it should be 100,000 won.
This mismatch between intent and representation can lead to legal disputes, and there are legal mechanisms and case law to resolve them. These mechanisms are in place to protect the trust between individuals and ensure the stability of transactions. However, there are a number of requirements that must be met in order to rescind a legal act on the grounds of mistake. First, there must be a communication and the communication must be mistaken. Second, there must be a mistake in a material part of the legal act. In general, a material mistake means that both subjective and objective requirements are met, i.e., the mistake must be so important that the communicator would not have made the communication in the absence of the mistake, and the mistake must be so important that an ordinary person in the communicator’s position would not have made the communication. This includes mistakes of fact or misrepresentation, whereas mistakes of motive generally do not meet the objective requirement and are therefore not a material part of the content of the legal act. The exception to this is a mistake of motive induced by the other party. Third, the communicator must not be grossly negligent. Gross negligence is defined as a substantial lack of care that is ordinarily required in light of the person’s profession, the type of act, and the purpose of the act. An example of this would be if a person whose business is the purchase and sale of securities failed to investigate the company’s articles of incorporation for any restrictions on the transfer of shares, and not if the indicator made a simple mistake in labeling. Finally, there must be no grounds for exclusion of revocation. The right of rescission is excluded if the expressor consciously recognized the risk in his representation but acted adventurously, and if the error was more beneficial to the expressor than if there had been no error. The right of revocation is also excluded if the other party agrees with the intention of the mistaken signer, i.e. the signer who made the mistake, or if the other party indicates that it is willing to give effect to the signer’s intention.
As you can see, the process of communication and its legal effects are complex and depend on a variety of factors, and careful consideration is required at each stage of the communication process to avoid legal disputes and ensure smooth transactions. Understanding and familiarizing yourself with these processes is important for everyone involved in the practice of law.
