Contract Law - Week 17b Lectures Mistaken Identity A certain Jackie enters an antique shop in London She negotiates the purchase of a gold watch worth £500,000 and in the process says to the shop owner 'my name is Jackie Collins, you know, as in the novelist' The owner is star-struck and accepts a cheque which turns out to be worthless. Issues · Distinguishing between mistake as to identity and mistake as to attributes. . Contracts made at a distance (not face-to-face). · Contracts made face-to-face (inter praesentes). · Contracts made through an intermediary. . Justification of the current law and questions of fairness. General Rule In order to be operative, the mistake must relate to the identity of the person with whom you are contracting, not his or her attributes. . Is this a meaningful distinction? 'A distinction without a difference' (Lord Denning, in Lewis v Averay 'A man's name is one of his attributes. It is also a key to his identity. If, then, he gives a false name, is it a mistake as to his identity? Or a mistake as to his
Contracts not made face-to-face Boulton v Jones (1857) · Defendant sent an order to one 'Brocklehurst' with whom he had dealt regularly. . Brocklehurst had however transferred his business to his foreman , who then fulfilled the order. . Defendant resisted a claim for payment by the foreman based on the argument of ‘set-off'. . Held: the identity of Brocklehurst was important to the defendant and the contract was void. Cundy v Lindsay (1878) . ‘Of him [Blenkarn], they [the plaintiffs] knew nothing, and of him they never thought. With him they never intended to deal ... ' o Lord Cairns • Contract was void for Mistake as to identity King's Norton Metal Co. v Eldridge, Merrett & Co. (1987) · Mistaken party must be able to show who it was that was the intended contracting party. · Here, mistake was of attributes, not identity. Contracts made face-to-face . Phillips v Brooks (1919) . Lewis v Averay (1972) · Ingram v Little (1961) o Identity was of the utmost importance, so contract was void for mistake . Shogun Finance Ltd. v Hudson (2003) Contracts made through an intermediary . Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson (2003) · Is this a fair approach? . 'We cannot leave the law as it is. It is neither fair nor principled, and not all of the authorities can be reconciled; some, at least, must be overruled if it is to be extricated from the present quagmire.' o Lord Millet, minority judgment, House of Lords Hardman v Booth (1863) . Plaintiff approached a firm called Thomas Gandell & Sons. · Plaintiff dealt with Edward Gandell, a member of the family, who was supposedly acting for the firm. . In fact, Edward Gandell was acting on his own account and intercepted the goods sent by the plaintiff and sold them off to the defendant. . Held- plaintiff never intended to deal with