Mistake & mistaken identity (application) Problem question Derek is a vintage car dealer. He owns a 1971 MG GT racing car which is stored in the garage at his home. The Car has been advertised for sale on a specialist website for £55,000. In response to the advert Derek is contacted by Lewis Hampton who introduced himself as a famous Formula One racing driver. Lewis offers to pay the full price for the car with cash, and to collect it from DereKs home the following day. When Lewis arrives, he explains that he was not able to draw enough cash at short notice and asked Derek to accept a personal cheque instead. Derek reluctantly agrees after Lewis reminds him of his Formula One job and signed the cheque with a gold Mercedes-Benz team pen. Derek also owns an alfa Romeo Bertone coupe which is stored in the warehouse some distance from his home.For the previous month, discussions have been taking place between Derek Albert about possible sale of this car to Albert. Finally the parties agree on the sale of the car at a price of £57,000. This agreement is made at Derek's home. The parties then agreed to meet at the warehouse later in the day in order for Albert to remove the car to his own garage. Consider the following (separate) situations and advise Derek: (A) Derricks bank telephoned him to explain that Lewis Hamptons cheque has bounced. After further investigation, Derek learns that the MG car has been sold to Bernie. Derek wishes to recover the car, or its cost from Bernie. (B) when Derek and Albert arrive at the warehouse, they find a violent localised storm occurred the previous night. The roof of the warehouse has collapsed inside the building and the car has been totally destroyed. (C)The car is not an original alfa Romeo but is a high quality replica only, and (I) The fact that the car is only a replica is not known by either party. (II) The fact that the car is a replica is known to Derek, this is not disclosed Albert. to In such circumstances where the parties deal with one another face to face (inter praesentes) the law presumes that the owner of the good intent on track with the person standing in front of him i.e. the rogue, even though he may introduce himself by the name of his alter ego this is therefore a valid intention to form a contract and so the role requires good title to the goods the owner has the option to rescind the voidable contract by reason of the for the misrepresentation of the rogue. Similarly, within Derek's case this applies when Lewis Hampton "arrives at his house" even though " he introduces himself as a famous formula one driver". The issue is whether the owner intended to contract with the rogue (even if it was under the effect of a
fraudulent misrepresentation). Indeed, in Lewis v Averay [1972] court of Appeal