Mistake of identity CASES
In English contract law, a mistake of identity occurs when one party contracts under the fundamental misunderstanding of the other party’s true identity, potentially affecting the validity of the contract.
Definition and Principles
Mistakes of identity typically arise where identity is essential to contract formation, especially in credit or personal trust scenarios. Such mistakes can render contracts void or voidable.
Types of Mistake
- Face-to-face contracts: Usually considered voidable, but valid until rescinded.
- Written contracts (distance): Typically void from the outset if identity was fundamentally important.
Key Cases
- Cundy v Lindsay (1878): Contract void due to fundamental identity error.
- Phillips v Brooks Ltd (1919): Contract generally voidable rather than void in face-to-face transactions.
Practical Importance
Understanding mistakes of identity clarifies contractual risks, guiding parties in verifying identities and managing potential disputes.
Home » Mistake of identity
A rogue impersonated a reputable person to obtain a ring from a jeweller with a false cheque. The court held the contract was voidable for fraud, not void for mistake, as the jeweller intended to contract with the person physically present. Facts A man named North entered the plaintiff’s (Phillips) jewellery shop and selected pearls and a ring. He identified himself as ‘Sir George Bullough’ and provided a corresponding address. The plaintiff verified the name and address in a directory and, believing the representations, allowed North to take the ring in exchange for a cheque. The cheque was subsequently dishonoured
Lewis sold his car to a rogue impersonating a famous actor, accepting a fraudulent cheque. The rogue sold the car to Averay, an innocent purchaser. The court held the initial contract was voidable for fraud, not void for mistake, so Averay acquired good title. Facts The claimant, Mr Lewis, a postgraduate chemistry student, advertised his Austin Cooper S for sale. A man, who was in fact a rogue, arranged to see the car and offered the asking price of £450. When it came to payment, the rogue produced a chequebook. Mr Lewis was hesitant to accept a cheque. To allay
Plaintiffs sold a car to a rogue impersonating another person, accepting his cheque only after verifying the identity in a directory. The rogue sold the car to an innocent defendant. The court held the contract was void due to mistake of identity. Facts The plaintiffs, three elderly ladies, advertised their car for sale. A rogue, introducing himself as ‘Hutchinson’, offered to buy it for £717. When he produced a chequebook, one of the plaintiffs stated they would not accept a cheque and the deal was off. To persuade them, the rogue gave his full name as P.G.M. Hutchinson and an
A rogue, Blenkarn, impersonated a reputable firm to fraudulently obtain handkerchiefs from Lindsay & Co. He then sold them to an innocent third party, Cundy. The House of Lords held that no contract ever existed between Lindsay and the rogue, meaning title never passed. Facts The case concerned a quantity of linen handkerchiefs ordered from the respondents, Lindsay & Co., who were manufacturers in Belfast. The order came from a fraudulent individual named Alfred Blenkarn, who was operating from a room he had rented at 37 Wood Street, Cheapside. Blenkarn intentionally signed his correspondence in a manner that made his
