Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 200 views

    Phillips v. Brooks: Egal Spects OF Usiness

    Uploaded by

    Abhimanyu Singh
    Phillips v. Brooks addressed whether Phillips could void the contract for the sale of a ring to a man using a false identity and seek its return from Brooks Ltd., who the man had pawned the ring to. The court found that while fraud occurred, Phillips contracted with the individual present, not the stated identity, so there was no mistake of identity to void the contract. As fraudulent contracts are voidable but not void, title passed to the man and then Brooks Ltd., making Brooks the legal owner. Therefore, Phillips could not recover the ring from Brooks Ltd.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Phillips v. Brooks: Egal Spects OF Usiness

    Uploaded by

    Abhimanyu Singh
    200 views3 pages
    Phillips v. Brooks addressed whether Phillips could void the contract for the sale of a ring to a man using a false identity and seek its return from Brooks Ltd., who the man had pawned the ring to. The court found that while fraud occurred, Phillips contracted with the individual present, not the stated identity, so there was no mistake of identity to void the contract. As fraudulent contracts are voidable but not void, title passed to the man and then Brooks Ltd., making Brooks the legal owner. Therefore, Phillips could not recover the ring from Brooks Ltd.

    Original Title

    Phillips v. brooks

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Phillips v. Brooks addressed whether Phillips could void the contract for the sale of a ring to a man using a false identity and seek its return from Brooks Ltd., who the man had pawned the ring to. The court found that while fraud occurred, Phillips contracted with the individual present, not the stated identity, so there was no mistake of identity to void the contract. As fraudulent contracts are voidable but not void, title passed to the man and then Brooks Ltd., making Brooks the legal owner. Therefore, Phillips could not recover the ring from Brooks Ltd.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    200 views3 pages

    Phillips v. Brooks: Egal Spects OF Usiness

    Uploaded by

    Abhimanyu Singh
    Phillips v. Brooks addressed whether Phillips could void the contract for the sale of a ring to a man using a false identity and seek its return from Brooks Ltd., who the man had pawned the ring to. The court found that while fraud occurred, Phillips contracted with the individual present, not the stated identity, so there was no mistake of identity to void the contract. As fraudulent contracts are voidable but not void, title passed to the man and then Brooks Ltd., making Brooks the legal owner. Therefore, Phillips could not recover the ring from Brooks Ltd.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    AMITY UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR

    LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS

    CASE ANALYSIS
    Phillips v. Brooks

    SUBMITTED BY:
    SUBMITTED TO:
    Pooja Sharma Prof. Vednath
    Sharma
    A20001919024
    MBA 2ND SEM
    FACTS

    On 15 April 1918, a man named North entered Phillip's 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.

    ISSUES

    Whether Phillips could rely on mistake to identity to void the contract and seek
    possession/ownership of the ring.

    ANALYSIS

    The earlier judgement of Cundy v Lindsay had established that contracts could be automatically
    void for mistake to identity. Where this is the case, title 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:

    “ 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 shop.[1] ”

    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:

    “ The following expressions used in the judgment of Horridge J seem to me to fit the facts
    in this case:

    "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 voidable, 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."

    CONCLUSION

    It was found that whilst the fraudster had indeed fraudulently purchased the ring there was no
    mistake as to identity due to the fact this contract was made face-to-face. Whilst fraudulent
    statements were made, the identity of the fraudster could not be considered ‘mistaken’.
    Importantly, a fraudulent contract is voidable (not void) and permits property to pass to bona fide
    third-party meaning Brooks Ltd was the legal owner of the ring.

    You might also like