Contract - E -seminar - Mistake and Mistaken Identity Cases Lewis v Averay [1972] 2 All ER 229 Facts · Mr Lewis wanted to sell his car · A Rogue, impersonating Richard Greene, expressed interest in the car . They agreed £450 for the car . The rogue wanted to pay cheque . Mr Lewis asked for ID - the rogue presented a press pass . The rogue then sold the car to Mr Averay £200 . Mr Lewis' cheque bounced · The rogue had disappeared Issue · Mr Lewis argued there was mistaken identity of buyer · Meaning there was no contract . Mr Lewis argued the car was still his property . Issue whether there was a valid contract Mr Lewis and the rogue Held . The mistaken identity didn't prevent a valid contract between rogue and Mr Lewis . The Face to Face interaction = law presumes contract . The rogue used fraud and impersonation - which would make the contract voidable - this must be done before the 3rd party acquires rights . In this case, the contract wasn't set aside before Mr Averay purchased the car Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 KB 243 Facts · Phillips was a jeweller · Fraudster purchased a ring with a cheque signed - 'Sir George Bullough', and provided the person's address . Phillip knew of Bullough and where he lived . Knowing this he allowed him to take the ring before the cheque cleared . The purchaser turned out not to be 'Sir George Bullough' . Then pledges the ring to a bone fide 3rd party Issues . Whether Phillips could rely on mistaken identity to void the contract and seek possession / ownership of the ring Held . As the contract was made face to face - there was still contract . Even though the ring was purchased fraudulently · Fraudulent contract is voidable (not void) · Permits property to pass to bona fide third-party meaning Brooks Ltd was the legal owner of the ring
Ingram & Ors v Little [1961] 1 QB 31 Facts . Plaintiff were joint owners of the car · Fraudster attempted to purchase the car by cheque which they refused . He pretended to be a businessman - the plaintiffs then accepted the cheque · The cheque didn't clear . By then the fraudster had sold on the car to the defendants . The plaintiffs sought to recover the car / the value of the car from the defendants Issue . The issue here was whether the defendants could claim possessory title over the vehicle based on contract made by mistaken identity Held · The Plaintiffs claim was successful · Court applied principle of the process - forming a binding contract to current facts . Contract for sale was made with 'wealthy businessman' not the fraudster in personal capacity . The fact that the fraudster used someone else's identity to make the contract prevented a contract from being formed Couturier v Hastie