Ingram v Little
A contract with a rogue was void for mistake as to identity where the sellers had shown they would deal only with the person whose identity was claimed.
Facts
Two elderly sisters advertised their car for sale. A rogue came to their house and agreed to buy it for £717. When he offered to pay by cheque, the sisters said that they would only accept cash. The rogue then said that he was Mr P G M Hutchinson, of Stanstead House, Caterham. One of the sisters checked the telephone directory at the local post office and found that a person of that name lived at that address. The sisters then accepted the cheque and let him take the car. The cheque was dishonoured, and the rogue sold the car to Mr Little, who bought it in good faith.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held, by a majority, that the contract was void for mistake as to identity, so the rogue had no title and Mr Little had to return the car or pay its value. The sisters had shown that they were unwilling to deal with the man as a stranger, and only agreed when they believed he was the real Mr Hutchinson, so their offer was made to Mr Hutchinson and could not be accepted by the rogue. Devlin LJ dissented, arguing that the sisters intended to deal with the person in front of them. The decision is difficult to reconcile with Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay, and the House of Lords in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson treated the face to face presumption as the general rule.
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
- Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459
- 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
- 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.
