44:
181:
This outcome can be explained by putting it as such: Mr
Phillips hoped he was contracting with Sir George Bullough, but in reality he agreed to contract with whoever came into his shop, taking a risk that he was not who he said he was. It had the mere effect of making the contract voidable for fraud,
198:, but not void. He could not have supposed that he was selling to any other person; his intention was to sell to the person present, and identified by sight and hearing; it does not defeat the sale because the buyer assumed a false name or practised any other deceit to induce the vendor to sell."
129:. Mr Phillips checked the phone directory and found there was someone there by that name. Mr Phillips asked if he would like to take the jewellery with him and Mr North said he would leave the pearls but take the ring 'for his wife's birthday tomorrow'. Mr North then
176:
I have carefully considered the evidence of the plaintiff, and have come to the conclusion that, although he believed the person to whom he was handing the ring was Sir George
Bullough, he in fact contracted to sell and deliver it to the person who came into his
194:"The minds of the parties met and agreed upon all the terms of the sale, the thing sold, the price and time of payment, the person selling and the person buying. The fact that the seller was induced to sell by fraud of the buyer made the sale
592:
514:
109:. It held that a person is deemed to contract with the person in front of them unless they can substantially prove that they instead intended to deal with someone else (see also
296:
168:
does not pass to the fraudulent buyer, and the third party loses out in the entirety. This principle is different where parties contract face to face;
564:
490:
229:
538:
142:
550:
695:
312:
473:
416:
222:
137:
700:
258:
419:
133:
the ring to Brooks Ltd for £350. When the false cheque was dishonoured, Phillips sued Brooks Ltd to get the ring back.
690:
17:
442:
215:
636:
615:
428:
106:
347:
466:
335:
136:
Note that there are conflicting reports showing that Mr North identified himself after the ring was sold, as
710:
375:
87:
656:
604:
432:
403:
110:
389:
325:
705:
459:
642:
187:
169:
75:
126:
626:
102:
125:". He wrote a dud cheque for £3000 to pay for some pearls and a ring. He said he lived in
8:
161:
379:
582:
568:
554:
365:
351:
631:
121:
On 15 April 1918, a man named North entered
Phillips' jewellery shop and said, "I am
407:
393:
165:
302:
286:
182:
meaning that title passed to the rogue and subsequently to the third party buyer:
649:
502:
270:
156:
122:
578:
246:
684:
361:
207:
282:
451:
130:
43:
195:
160:
had established that contracts could be automatically void for
146:, but others say that North identified himself straight away.
298:
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
186:The following expressions used in the judgment of
682:
467:
237:
223:
90:, mistake about identity, third party rights
481:
314:Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell
474:
460:
230:
216:
190:seem to me to fit the facts in this case:
42:
593:Citibank NA v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd
14:
683:
455:
417:Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
211:
515:King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Roberts
259:Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co
24:
696:English misrepresentation case law
25:
722:
443:Misrepresentation in English law
637:Mistake in English contract law
616:Mistake in English contract law
429:Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
669:
348:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon
13:
1:
663:
336:Lambert v Co-op Insurance Ltd
376:Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson
88:Fraudulent misrepresentation
7:
701:High Court of Justice cases
657:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
605:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
404:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
203:
149:
111:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
10:
727:
390:Saamco v York Montague Ltd
326:Misrepresentation Act 1967
164:. Where this is the case,
613:
601:
589:
575:
561:
547:
535:
523:
511:
499:
487:
440:
426:
414:
400:
386:
372:
358:
344:
332:
323:
309:
293:
279:
267:
255:
243:
238:Misrepresentation sources
154:The earlier judgement of
86:
81:
71:
66:
58:
50:
41:
34:
27:English contract law case
691:English mistake case law
116:
643:Nemo dat quod non habet
482:Mistaken identity cases
201:
200:
179:
262:(1878) 3 App Cas 1218
192:
184:
174:
98:Phillips v Brooks Ltd
36:Phillips v Brooks Ltd
627:English contract law
506:(1878) 3 App Cas 459
103:English contract law
711:1919 in British law
494:(1857) 27 LJ Ex 117
162:mistake to identity
123:Sir George Bullough
250:(1766) 3 Burr 1905
127:St. James's Square
632:Misrepresentation
622:
621:
527:Phillips v Brooks
449:
448:
339:2 Lloyd's Rep 485
94:
93:
18:Phillips v Brooks
16:(Redirected from
718:
706:1919 in case law
676:
673:
518:(1897) 14 TLR 98
476:
469:
462:
453:
452:
315:
299:
274:(1881) 20 Ch D 1
232:
225:
218:
209:
208:
138:Viscount Haldane
105:case concerning
67:Court membership
46:
32:
31:
21:
726:
725:
721:
720:
719:
717:
716:
715:
681:
680:
679:
674:
670:
666:
650:Cundy v Lindsay
623:
618:
609:
597:
585:
571:
565:Ingram v Little
557:
543:
531:
519:
507:
503:Cundy v Lindsay
495:
491:Boulton v Jones
483:
480:
450:
445:
436:
422:
410:
396:
382:
368:
354:
340:
328:
319:
313:
305:
297:
289:
275:
271:Redgrave v Hurd
263:
251:
239:
236:
206:
157:Cundy v Lindsay
152:
119:
101:2 KB 243 is an
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
724:
714:
713:
708:
703:
698:
693:
678:
677:
667:
665:
662:
661:
660:
653:
646:
639:
634:
629:
620:
619:
614:
611:
610:
602:
599:
598:
590:
587:
586:
579:Lewis v Averay
576:
573:
572:
562:
559:
558:
548:
545:
544:
539:Lake v Simonds
536:
533:
532:
524:
521:
520:
512:
509:
508:
500:
497:
496:
488:
485:
484:
479:
478:
471:
464:
456:
447:
446:
441:
438:
437:
427:
424:
423:
415:
412:
411:
401:
398:
397:
387:
384:
383:
373:
370:
369:
359:
356:
355:
345:
342:
341:
333:
330:
329:
324:
321:
320:
310:
307:
306:
294:
291:
290:
280:
277:
276:
268:
265:
264:
256:
253:
252:
247:Carter v Boehm
244:
241:
240:
235:
234:
227:
220:
212:
205:
202:
151:
148:
143:Lake v Simmons
118:
115:
92:
91:
84:
83:
79:
78:
73:
69:
68:
64:
63:
60:
56:
55:
52:
48:
47:
39:
38:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
723:
712:
709:
707:
704:
702:
699:
697:
694:
692:
689:
688:
686:
675:2 KB 243, 246
672:
668:
659:
658:
654:
652:
651:
647:
645:
644:
640:
638:
635:
633:
630:
628:
625:
624:
617:
612:
607:
606:
600:
595:
594:
588:
584:
581:
580:
574:
570:
567:
566:
560:
556:
553:
552:
551:Long v Lloyds
546:
541:
540:
534:
529:
528:
522:
517:
516:
510:
505:
504:
498:
493:
492:
486:
477:
472:
470:
465:
463:
458:
457:
454:
444:
439:
434:
430:
425:
421:
418:
413:
409:
406:
405:
399:
395:
392:
391:
385:
381:
378:
377:
371:
367:
364:
363:
362:East v Maurer
357:
353:
350:
349:
343:
338:
337:
331:
327:
322:
317:
316:
308:
304:
301:
300:
292:
288:
285:
284:
278:
273:
272:
266:
261:
260:
254:
249:
248:
242:
233:
228:
226:
221:
219:
214:
213:
210:
199:
197:
191:
189:
183:
178:
173:
171:
167:
163:
159:
158:
147:
145:
144:
139:
134:
132:
128:
124:
114:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
89:
85:
80:
77:
74:
72:Judge sitting
70:
65:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
40:
37:
33:
30:
19:
671:
655:
648:
641:
603:
596:2 All ER 690
591:
577:
563:
549:
537:
526:
525:
513:
501:
489:
433:SI 2008/1277
402:
388:
374:
360:
346:
334:
311:
295:
283:Derry v Peek
281:
269:
257:
245:
193:
185:
180:
175:
155:
153:
141:
135:
120:
97:
96:
95:
35:
29:
380:EWCA Civ 12
685:Categories
664:References
583:EWCA Civ 4
569:EWCA Civ 1
555:EWCA Civ 3
420:2005/29/EC
366:EWCA Civ 6
352:EWCA Civ 4
188:Horridge J
170:Horridge J
76:Horridge J
54:1 May 1919
530:2 KB 243
318:1 QB 525
204:See also
196:voidable
172:stated:
150:Judgment
140:said in
82:Keywords
62:2 KB 243
59:Citation
608:UKHL 62
408:UKHL 62
394:UKHL 10
107:mistake
51:Decided
542:AC 487
303:UKHL 4
287:UKHL 1
131:pawned
177:shop.
166:title
117:Facts
113:).
687::
475:e
468:t
461:v
435:)
431:(
231:e
224:t
217:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
