Contracts made face to face Lewis v Averay Lewis was a postgraduate student who wanted to sell car, met with someone pretending to be a famous actor (rogue), sold for a bounced check of £450. Rough further sold car to Averay for £200. The rouge disappeared. Held that the mistake identity of the rough did not prevent a contract being formed between them and Averay. There was a face to face interaction, where the law presumes contract. Could have been voidable if voided before third party acquires the rights. Phillips v Brooks LTD Phillips was a jeweller, rouge purchased a ring with a cheque, used a celebrity name and id Sir George Bullough, Phillips new this was their address so let them leave before the cheque cleared. Sold on to third party. Can Phillip rely on mistaken identity to seek possession of the ring Whilste it was held that the ring had been bought fraudulently no mistaken identy as face to face. Whilst fraudulent statements were made, the identity of the fraudster could not be considered 'mistaken'. Importantly, a fraudulent contract is voidable (not void) and permits property to pass to bona fide third-party meaning Brooks Ltd was the legal owner of the ring. Cundy v Lindsay The identity of the contracting person is of fundamental importance to the contract Rogue hired room on wood street, the same street as a big firm. Rogue ordered handkerchiefs with a signature appearing to be that of the big firm. Never paid for handkerchiefs. Sold them to cundy. Held that the contract was voidable as Lindsay would have never entered into the contract if the defendant hadn't have lied. Rogue had no right to sell the contract. Maisie cases Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris, The Great Peace [2002] EWCA Civ 1407G. D, Tsavliris Salvage International Ltd, offered salvaging facilities to ships in the South Indian Ocean that needed assistance. Cape Providence required help after it had endured structural damage at sea. D looked for any merchant vessels that were nearby to assist them. Great Peace Shipping Ltd, were the closest, around 30 miles away. D commissioned the complainants to help the ship, was a mistake and the complainants were around 400 miles away from the ship. Cape Providence was sinking, the defendants cancelled the contract with the complainants and asked another ship for assistance.
Was the case a common mistake and if it could void the contract? It was held that this was not a common mistake that would void the contract between the complainant and defendant. It was a matter of quality of the performance of the contract. Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86. C purchased a picture from D stated it was painted by the artist, J. Constable. 5 years later, C tried to sell it at an auction house and was told it had not been painted by the artist he had been told previously. He returned the painting to D who retained it for inspection. C