Junaid Ahmed Rahat
Monday 3.30 – 4.30
In this essay I am going to discuss why the two cases of “Phillips v Brooks Ltd” (1919) 2 KB 243 and “Ingram v Little” (1961) 1 QB 31 cannot be reconciled. And also how the decision by Mr. Lord denning in “Lewis v Averay” (1972) 1 QB 198 resolved the conflict between the other two cases. The wrong decision in one case caused the conflict and a right decision in another case after 50 years resolved it.
The common thing among the three cases is the unilateral mistake. A unilateral mistake is where only one party to a contract is false as to the terms or subject matter limited in a contract. All three cases are from England. The two cases of “Phillips v Brooks Ltd” (1919) 2 KB 243 and “Ingram v Little” (1972) 1 QB 198 cannot be compared because they are not 100 percent the same. In the second case the rouge gave his identity at d beginning before offering his deal whereas in the first case the rouge gave his false identity after the both parties agreed to have a deal meaning talked about the deal. In the first case the identity of the rouge was not important, Phillips had the contract with the man who physically entered the shop. It’s different in the second case. In the first case the ultimate buyer got the good but in the first case the original owner got the good.
In “Lewis v Averay” (1972) 1 QB 198 it is the similar situation. Lewis sells the car to a rouge and then the rouge sells the car to Averay. Lewis sues Averay but looses the case. There was no unilateral mistake in this case because lewis had the intention to sell it to the rouge. Averay bought the car with good heart. And the car was sold to Averay before Lewis sued Averay so according to the law Lewis cannot sue Averay. The decision in “Ingram v Little” (1972) 1 QB 198 was wrong. The decision of “Lewis v Averay” (1972) 1 QB 198 is being followed for any unilateral mistake cases...