The ‘mistaken identity’ cases were recently reviewed
by the House of Lords in the following case.
3 Mistaken signing of a written document.As a gen-
eral rule, a person who signs a document is assumed to
have read, understood and agreed to its contents.
Exceptionally, a person may be able to plead non est fac-
tum– ‘it is not my deed’. Three elements must be pre-
sent if the contract is to be avoided: the signature must
have been induced by fraud, the document signed must
be fundamentally different from that thought to be
signed, and the signer must not have acted negligently.Part 3Business transactions
234
The cheque was dishonoured. The man, who was in fact
a rogue called North, pledged the ring with the defend-
ant pawnbrokers. The claimant sued the defendants for
the return of the ring or its value. It was held that the con-
tract between the claimant and the rogue North was not
void for mistake but voidable for fraud. At the time the
contract was made the claimant intended to deal with
the person physically in his shop and his identity was
immaterial. As the claimant had not rescinded the con-
tract by the time North pledged the ring, the defendants
obtained good title (rights of ownership).Lewisv Averay(1971)Lewis sold his car to a man who claimed he was Richard
Greene, the star of the popular 1960s television series,
‘Robin Hood’. The man paid by cheque, producing a
pass to Pinewood Studios as proof of his identity. He
resold the car to Averay. The cheque had been taken
from a stolen cheque book and was later dishonoured.
Lewis sued Averay in the tort of conversion. The Court of
Appeal held that Lewis intended to deal with the man
actually in front of him, despite his fraudulent claim to be
Richard Greene. The contract between Lewis and the
rogue was not void for mistake, but rather voidable for
a fraudulent misrepresentation. Since Lewis had not
avoided the contract by the time the rogue sold the car
to Averay, Averay acquired good rights of ownership. He
was not liable in conversion.as a dealer. R disappeared without trace. Shogun was
claiming the return of the car or its value from Hudson.
Hudson argued that he had obtained good title to the car
by virtue of the provisions of s 27 of the Hire Purchase
Act 1964. The House of Lords held (by a majority of three
to two) that Shogun was entitled to recover the car. Lord
Phillips concluded that:
the correct approach in the present case is to treat the
agreement as one concluded in writing and to approach
the identification of the parties to that agreement as turning
on its construction. The particulars in the agreement are
only capable of applying to Mr Patel. It was the intention
of the rogue that they should identify Mr Patel as the hirer.
The hirer was so identified by Shogun. Before deciding
to enter into the agreement they checked that Mr Patel
existed and that he was worthy of credit. On that basis
they decided to contract with him and with no-one else.
Mr Patel was the hirer under the agreement. As the agree-
ment was concluded without his authority, it was a nullity.
The rogue took no title under it and was in no position to
convey any title to Mr Hudson.
Lords Nicholls and Millett, dissenting, took the view that
in cases of mistaken identity the distinction between
face-to-face dealings and transactions concluded in
writing should be removed and a person should be pre-
sumed to contract with the person with whom he or she
was actually dealing. In their minority judgment their
Lordships preferred the decisions of PhillipsvBrooks
and LewisvAverayto CundyvLindsay.Shogun Finance Ltdv Hudson(2004)A fraudster R obtained P’s driving licence by dishonest
means. R visited the showrooms of a car dealer, where
he introduced himself to the sales manager as Mr Durlabh
Patel. R agreed to buy a Mitsubishi Shogun car for
£22,250, subject to obtaining hire-purchase finance. R
completed a hire-purchase proposal form in the name of
Mr Patel. The sales manager contacted Shogun Finance’s
sales support team, which ran a check on the details of
Mr Patel provided by R. Shogun was satisfied with the
information provided and it accepted the hire-purchase
proposal. R paid a 10 per cent deposit, partly in cash
and partly by cheque. The cheque was subsequently
dishonoured. The sales manager handed over the car
with full documentation. R sold the car to Mr Hudson for
£17,000. Hudson bought the car for his own use and notSaundersv Anglia Building Society
(1971)
Mrs Gallie was a 78-year-old widow. In June 1962 she
was visited by her nephew, Walter Parkin, and a Mr Lee.
Lee asked her to sign a document, which he told her was
a deed of gift of her house to her nephew Walter. Mrs
Gallie had broken her spectacles and, as she could not
read without them, she signed the document without
reading it through. The document which Mrs Gallie
signed was in fact an assignment of her leasehold inter-
est in the house to Lee. The Anglia Building Society