Cundy v Lindsay
Where a party intends to contract only with a specific identified person, a contract with a rogue who impersonates them in writing is void.
Facts
Lindsay & Co, linen manufacturers in Belfast, received letters ordering a large quantity of handkerchiefs from a man named Alfred Blenkarn. He wrote from 37 Wood Street, Cheapside, and signed his name so that it looked like Blenkiron & Co, a respectable firm that Lindsay knew of, which traded at 123 Wood Street. Lindsay sent the goods, addressed to Blenkiron & Co at 37 Wood Street. Blenkarn did not pay and sold the goods to Cundy, who bought them in good faith. Blenkarn was later convicted of fraud. Lindsay sued Cundy in the tort of conversion.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Cundy was liable to Lindsay, because Blenkarn had no title to the goods and could pass none. Lindsay intended to deal only with Blenkiron & Co, and never intended to contract with Blenkarn, of whom they knew nothing. Lord Cairns said that there was no consensus of mind which could lead to any agreement or contract between Lindsay and Blenkarn. Since there was no contract at all, not even a voidable one, Blenkarn obtained no title, and Cundy's good faith could not help him.
Related cases on mistake
- Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Crédit du Nord SA [1989] 1 WLR 255
- Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161
- Couturier v Hastie (1856) 5 HLC 673
- Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407, [2003] QB 679
- Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
- Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31
- Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198
- Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 KB 243
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
