Lewis v Averay
In face to face dealings there is a strong presumption that a party intends to contract with the person in front of them.
Facts
Mr Lewis, a postgraduate student, advertised his Austin Cooper car for sale. A man came to his flat, said he was Richard Greene, a well known actor who played Robin Hood on television, and agreed to buy the car for £450. When he offered a cheque, Mr Lewis asked for proof of identity, and the man showed him an official pass to Pinewood Studios with the name Richard A Green and a photograph. Mr Lewis accepted the cheque, which was worthless, and let him take the car. The rogue then sold the car to Mr Averay, a music student, who bought it in good faith for £200. Mr Lewis sued Mr Averay in conversion.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Averay was entitled to keep the car. When parties deal face to face, there is a strong presumption that each intends to contract with the person present, even if mistaken about that person's identity. The contract was therefore voidable for fraud, not void for mistake, and because Mr Lewis had not avoided the contract before the rogue sold the car, Mr Averay acquired good title. Lord Denning MR said that Ingram v Little was wrongly decided, and that the court should not draw fine distinctions between cases of this kind.
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
- Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31
- 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.
