Is a misrepresentation for this case. H giving the wrong information to G, infact H might not realize the information that he given is wrong. So H don't have the intention to cheat G. And H described the chair as "Sheraton Style" so it doesn't mean the chair is probably made from Sheraton, it might be something that look like Sheraton style but in good manufacturer. So G is buy the chair because of the description "sheraton style" not "made by sheraton", if H wrote " made by sheraton" then there is Fraud in this case. And G can claim for it. But H didn't write that, so G cannot claim that H got intention to cheat him, the contract is still valid, and G have to pay for it.
There is common mistake in this case, because both of them also do the same mistake of the pattern. G who buy the teapot might not know the actual value of the teapot, and H who knew a little bit of China teapot have failed to label the price, so this cannot blame to G. Even the contract can be void, but it is very hard for H to prove G got wrong perception on the things.
This case show that both of them also make the same mistake for the gaudy welsh cup and saucer. G can claim under common mistake to void the contract. If the court can prove both of them is common mistake then G can return the goods for H and H can refund to G.
There is failure of consideration in this case. No contract because I pretend as J to make the fake payment. And H didn't receive the payment. Even I purpoted to sell for K, but the goods still belong to H.