Phillips V Brooks
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Phillips v Brooks Ltd'' 9192 KB 243 is an
English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries ...
case concerning mistake. 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 Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson).


Facts

On 15 April 1918, a man named North entered Phillips' jewellery shop and said, "I am Sir George Bullough". He wrote a dud cheque for £3000 to pay for some pearls and a ring. He said he lived in St. James's Square. 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 pawned the ring to Brooks Ltd for £350. When the false cheque was dishonoured, Phillips sued Brooks Ltd to get the ring back. Note that there are conflicting reports showing that Mr North identified himself after the ring was sold, as Viscount Haldane said in '' Lake v Simmons'', but others say that North identified himself straight away.


Judgment

The earlier judgement of ''
Cundy v Lindsay ''Cundy v Lindsay'' (1877–78) LR 3 App Cas 459 is an English contract law case on the subject of mistake, introducing the concept that contracts could be automatically void for mistake as to identity, where it is of crucial importance.(187 ...
'' had established that contracts could be automatically void for mistake to identity. Where this is the case,
title A title is one or more words used before or after a person's name, in certain contexts. It may signify their generation, official position, military rank, professional or academic qualification, or nobility. In some languages, titles may be ins ...
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; Horridge J stated: 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, meaning that title passed to the rogue and subsequently to the third party buyer:


See also

*
English contract law English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries ...
*
Misrepresentation In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a False statements of fact, false or misleading''Royal Mail Case, R v Kylsant''
931 Year 931 ( CMXXXI) was a common year starting on Saturday of the Julian calendar. Events By place North Africa * The Ummayad Caliphate of Córdoba invades and conquers the city of Ceuta, which was ruled by the Berber dynasty Banu I ...
Question of law, statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then in ...
* Mistake in English contract law *''
Nemo dat quod non habet ''Nemo dat quod non habet'', literally meaning "no one can give what they do not have", is a legal rule, sometimes called the ''nemo dat'' rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also den ...
'' * ''
Cundy v Lindsay ''Cundy v Lindsay'' (1877–78) LR 3 App Cas 459 is an English contract law case on the subject of mistake, introducing the concept that contracts could be automatically void for mistake as to identity, where it is of crucial importance.(187 ...
'' * '' Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson''


References

{{reflist, 2 English mistake case law English misrepresentation case law High Court of Justice cases 1919 in case law 1919 in British law