The Case Of Shogun Finance Ltd V. Hudson

1205 Words Apr 7th, 2015 5 Pages
A troubling problem extending from more than a century ago, the question of mistaken identity reconciling with the fraud leading to a "person 's intention.. formed on a false basis" . The case in Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson has proven to be a sticky situation and "one of the most intractable legal problems" for judges and academics alike. There are several issues that ought to be brought forward for discussion, namely the method of contracting, the differentiating between attributes to identity, and the issue on the impact of fraud in a contract. The question to ask is whether the fraudster was a debtor under the agreement, and the short answer would be yes, rendering a contract voidable for fraud. This aligns with the statement by Lord Millet. Nonetheless, a more pertinent question would be whether common law 's take on mistaken identity should be swayed towards the dissenting judges ' arguments? Or should the judges retain the incoherence to remain coherent precedence, allowing for other means of reform to untie (or cut) the Gordian knot in this area of mistaken identity?
Method of Dealing
In Cundy , the contract was held void for mistake through the correspondences that the claimant clearly intended to deal with someone other than the fraudster. Surprisingly, this decision was followed in Ingram though the mode of dealing was inter praesentes. The Court of Appeal distinguished Ingram from Philips v Brooks Ltd and held that there was no consensus ad…
Open Document