Phillips vs Brooks

Citation: (1919) 2 KB 243

Judge: Justice Thomas Gardner Horridge

Facts:

A person named north purchased some ring from a jewellery shop in the name of another person i.e. Sir Geroge Bollough and also issued a cheque under his name. Pursuant to verifying the address as provided by North, the seller agreed to sell the ring to North. Thereafter the seller came to know about the fraud committed by North, however by then North has already pledged the ring to a third party, Brooks Ltd. The seller sued the third party i.e Brooks Ltd..

Issues:

Whether the appellant could depend on mistake to identity to void the contract and have ownership of the ring?

Judgment:

The judge observed the facts of the case and considered the evidence of the plaintiff. There was no evidence of any harm except for the amount of ring that was taken. He concluded that the plaintiff contracted to retail and sent to the individual named North who entered his shop and pretended to be Sir George Bullough though he believed his false pretence. He referred to the case of Edmunds v. Merchants’ Despatch Transportation Co and expressed his view of the law. He laid two statements that if A, deceptively presuming the name of a trustworthy trader in a specific city, purchases in person goods of another then the property in the goods transfers to A and if A, on behalf of brother of a trustworthy trader in a specific city, purchasing for him, purchases in person goods of another then the property in the goods does not transfer to A. He held that in the present case there was a transfer of the property and the buyer had a good title. There was no mistake in the identity of the buyer as it was made face to face though he misrepresented himself as someone else. A fraudulent contract is voidable and not void as well as allows property to pass to bona fide third parties. Thus Brooks Ltd. was the legal owner of the ring.