Lord Denning took the opportunity to examine the two previous cases, and
felt that the legal principles in Phillips v Brooks were to be preferred. Where
parties are inter praesentes they intend to deal with the person before them,
identified by sight, hearing, etc., and their contracts are therefore binding on
that basis. It is not a matter of identity, but creditworthiness.
There is in practice very little difference between the cases apart from
the plaintiffs in Ingram v Little being elderly ladies and the seller in Phillips
v Brooksbeing in business. It could also be argued that the seller who
Mistake 193Can you think of any reason for the different decisions in the two cases
above?Lewis v Averay (1971)
A similar situation arose again, but this time a postgraduate student
sold a car to a person claiming to be Richard Greene, the actor, well
known at the time, who played Robin Hood in a television series. He
produced a pass to Pinewood studios, and thus persuaded Lewis to part
with the car for a cheque. The cheque was dishonoured, but by then the
car had been sold to Avery for cash, the rogue again disappearing.Ingram v Little (1961)
This involved similar facts to the case above, except that this time three
elderly ladies were selling a car. A rogue introduced himself as Mr P.
G. M. Hutchinson of a certain address, and wanted to buy the car. The
ladies were happy until the point where he produced a cheque. A
telephone directory was consulted to check the details given, and then
the sale was concluded. The cheque was dishonoured and the car sold
on to Little for cash, the rogue again disappearing. This time the court
held that the identity was crucial, and the contract was therefore void
for mistake, the car being returned to the ladies.Figure 12.2