E-SEMINAR MASTER DOCUMENT Seminar Topic: Mistake and Mistaken Identity Group Names: Hannah Moore, Harriet Kennedy, Sam Moncur, Bronwyn Selick Date: 25/02/2019 (IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES) The Legal issues in the scenario are: MISTAKE: Mistake: Situations where a contract may be regarded as never having come into existence or the contract is brought to an end as result of a mistake by either or both parties. Categories of a Mistake: - Common Mistake - (failure of a basic contractual assumption) - Mistake is as to a common assumption of fact - Mutual Mistake - (communication mistake) - Mistakes negativing agreement (i.e parties appear to be in an agreement, but are not). - Unilateral Mistake (mistake known to one party) - (ie one party takes advantage of the other's mistake) MISTAKEN IDENTITY: General rule: The mistake must relate to the identity of the person with whom you are contracting, not his or her attributes. (EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES) The relevant and important principles and cases are: Cases Cundy v Lindsay [1978] 3 App Cas 459 . The claimant received an order for sale of handkerchiefs from a person names Blenkarn, who signed in his name in a manner resembling "Blenkiron & Co" - a reputed firm located at '123, Wood Street'. The purchaser further mentioned his address to be at '37, Wood Street, Cheapside', to which the claimant sent the goods. . Although no payment was made by Blenkarn, he sold the goods to a third person- the defendants. . Later, the claimants alleged that, as they sold the goods to Blenkarn under the mistaken assumption that they were selling it to Blenkiron & Co, there was no real consent to the contract of sale. . Consequently there was no valid transfer of title, which remained with the claimants, and accordingly, they sued the defendants for conversion of goods. Issue: The case concerned whether a mistake as to the identity of a contracting party was so fundamental so as to negate the consent of the other party, and thereby, causing the contract to be void. The question was whether there was any contract between the claimant and Blenkarn at the first place, and if not, could the third party defendants procure a valid title to the goods. Held: . As the claimant did not intend to sell the handkerchiefs to Blenkarn but to Blenkiron & Co, there was no consent of the claimant to the contract with the former. . Accordingly, as no contract was concluded between the claimant and Blenkarn so as to constitute a valid transfer of the title, which the latter could rightfully convey to the defendants, the title remained with the claimant. . Hence the defendants, being in possession without a good title over such goods, were held liable for conversion. . The implications of this case were found that; 'a seller can nullify a contract as void and retain title of goods sold if the sale happens under a mistaken identity of the purchaser, notwithstanding that such goods may