Ingram v Little [1961]
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: The plaintiffs, joint owners of a car, were defrauded by an individual who pretended to be PGM Hutchinson, a wealthy businessman. The fraudster presented a cheque to purchase the car, which the plaintiffs initially refused but later accepted when the fraudster claimed to be a reputable businessman. The cheque bounced the next day. The fraudster then sold the car to the defendants, who were unaware of the fraud. The plaintiffs sought to recover the car or its value from the defendants.
Issue: Could the defendants claim possessory title to the car based on a contract made by mistaken identity?
Held: The plaintiffs' claim was upheld, and the defendants were liable for conversion. The contract between the plaintiffs and the fraudster was deemed void due to mistaken identity, so the fraudster could not pass good title to the defendants.
Key Judicial Statements: Pearce LJ: In face-to-face transactions, there is a presumption that an offer is made to the person physically present. This presumption can be rebutted, but it is challenging. For instance, if someone misrepresents themselves as a famous figure, the contract is void because the offer was intended for the real famous person, not the imposter. Conversely, if the misrepresentation occurs in a context where the seller is dealing with the public at large (such as in a shop), the contract may still be valid: [p. 37-38]. In this case, the fraudster's use of a false identity meant the contract was not validly formed with him personally. Since the plaintiffs’ agreement was based on the assumption that they were dealing with a wealthy individual, not the fraudster, the contract was void. Thus, the title did not pass to the fraudster or the subsequent buyers.
💡 Leveluplaw: This case reinforces the principle that genuine consent and accurate identity are crucial in contract formation. In face-to-face transactions, the presumption is that the contract is made with the individual present. However, if the person is fraudulently misrepresenting themselves, the contract can be rendered void, and any subsequent transactions with the fraudster will not confer good title. This highlights the importance of verifying identity and ensuring that contracts are based on truthful representations.