1. Mistake as to identity of the person
· Mistake must have induced the contract
· Mistake as to identity will usually void the contract
· Mistake as to attributes will not void the contract
i) contracts not made face to face
Cundy v Lindsay (1878)
Blenkarn ordered hankiechiefs by post but made his name look like Blekiron (a respectable firm). Cundy sent the goods to him addressed to Blenkiron & Co. but by the time they discovered he was not who they thought he had sold most of the goods to Lindsay. Held there was no contract between Blenkarn and Cundy therefore Lindsay had to return the goods.
Kings Norton Metal Co. Ltd v Edridge (1897)
Mr Wallis ordered goods under a fictitious company name from the plaintiffs. The goods were delivered but never paid for. CofA held there was a contract as the plaintiff intended to contract with the writer of the letter. Their mistake didn’t concern his identity but his attributes i.e. creditworthiness.
ii) Contracts made face to face
Philips v Brooks (1919)
A rogue posed as Sir George Bullock and went into the plaintiffs jewellers. He wrote a cheque for various items but the plaintiff was dubious as to his identity so checked his details in the phonebook. He allowed the rogue to take a ring away with him. The cheque bounced, but the ring had already been sold to Brooks who had brought it in good faith. Held the mistake was not crucial as it concerned the rogue’s creditworthiness not his identity therefore the ring could not be recovered from Brooks.
Ingram v Little (1961)
Two sisters sold their car to a rogue who claimed he was someone else they checked this in the phonebook and accepted his cheque. They had made their offer to P Hutchinson not the fraudster therefore he had no title to the car thus the car had to be returned by the car dealer who had brought the car off the rogue.
Showgun Finance v Hudson (2001)
A rogue completed hire purchase forms to buy a Showgun car signing it D Patel, showing a stolen driving licence to confirm his identity. The car dealer faxed this and the agreement to SF who checked the credit rating of the real D Patel and accepted the deal. SF argued that the deal was void for mistake as they intended to contract with D Patel not the rogue. H to whom the rogue had sold the car argued that because the agreement came within the face to face principle and so the agreement was only voidable. Held SF had never seen the rogue and there was no contract between them, as the offer of finance was to D Patel.
NB – Hire Purchase Agreement Act 1964 – where a car is subject to hire purchase but sold in god faith the title has passed.
Lewis v Avery (1971)
A rogue pretended to be a film star and produced a Pinewood Studios pass showing this and then purchased the car and sold it to Aver. Lewis found out the cheque was worthless and tried to recover the car. Held there was a contract therefore he could not recover the car because he had intended to contract with that person i.e. the person in front of him.
A person pleading mistake as to identity must prove: -
· He intended to deal with another person than the person with whom he has apparently made a contract
· The other party was aware of his intention
· He regarded the identity of the other party as a matter of crucial importance
· He took reasonable steps to verify the identity of the party
Midland Bank v Brown Shipley (1991)
A rogue passed himself off as a company officer and persuaded MB to issue a bakers draft to pay for large amounts of foreign currency he was buying from another bank. When the fraud was discovered MB tried to recover the money from BS, but failed because they had not taken sufficient steps to verify the identity of the rogue.