Lord Walker generally agreed with Lord Hobhouse's reasons for dismissing the appeal and elaborated a few points of his own. Lord Phillips agrees with Lords Walker and Hobhouse on the decision and goes on to state that the contract itself made it clear who Shogun Finance intended to contract with, and that was not the rogue.
Lord Hobhouse goes on to say that the seller intended to contract only with Mr Durlabh Patel and not with the rogue who was pretending to be Mr Patel. This decision was upheld on appeal by both the Court of Appeal and, subsequently, by the House of Lords in a majority decision, three to two The majority of the House of Lords - Lords Phillips, Hobhouse and Walker - explain their decision in terms of offer and acceptance, which all the judges agreed was at the heart of the case.
Some of these principles seem somehow unsuitable for strict and permanent delineations given that their construction often change with time Karasz Therefore, if the original seller did not repudiate the contract before the goods have been sold on, the third party would be protected.
According to the Companies Actjust a share was enough for one to be named as a member. Lord Phillips agrees with Lords Walker and Hobhouse on the decision and goes on to state that the contract itself made it clear who Shogun Finance intended to contract with, and that was not the rogue.
This document created a contract between the seller and Mr Patel, who was, of course, not aware and had not authorised it, and so the contract was void and no title had passed to the seller which meant that Mr Hudson's case failed on this ground.
Lord Nicholls and Lord Millett dissented, arguing that a better policy would be to remove the face-to-face distinction and protect the good-faith purchaser in all cases: There are UK writers just like me on hand, waiting to help you.
Related Abstract The doctrine of separate legal entity is a doctrine which has gained increasing importance in the analysis of company law.
Much of the criticism has been based on the fact that corporate veil may at times lead to injustice.
This criticism will be examined in detail in the next section. This example, however, does not encompass all the judicial exceptions. That would mean that in all cases of mistake to identity, contracts would be voidablerather than immediately void.
Just complete our simple order form and you could have your customised Law work in your email box, in as little as 3 hours. He had produced a false driving licence in the name of Durlabh Patel.
Thus the company was entitled to indemnity from the principal who in this case was Mr. The rogue then sold the car to Mr Norman Hudson, who had no knowledge that the vehicle belonged to Shogun Finance and was subject to an apparent hire purchase agreement.
He relies on what the parties intended by their actions. Mr Hudson relied on section 27 of the Hire Purchase Actwhich creates a statutory exception to the common law principle that "nemo dat quod non habet" nobody can pass better title than he hassince a non-trade buyer of a car who buys in good faith from a hirer under a hire purchase agreement becomes the owner.
About this resource This Law essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies. It was for this reason that Lord Millet held that the dealership were taking the risk that the person they thought they were contracting with was not in fact Mr Patel, and so should accept the responsibility for taking this risk.As such, the majority of the House of Lords in Shogun were of the opinion that when an agreement was reduced to writing, save when the rogue had used a pseudonym or where the identity of a party was in some way ambiguous, the identification of the parties was a matter of construction alone.
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson  UKHL 62 is an English contract law case decided in the House of Lords, on the subject of mistaken identity as a basis for rescission of a contract.
The case has been the subject of much criticism in failing to effectively clarify the area of mistake to identity.
HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Shogun Finance Limited (Respondents) v. Hudson (FC) (Appellant)  UKHL LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD. My Lords, 1.
This appeal raises a difficult problem about the effect of fraudulent misrepresentation on the formation of a contract. Mar 19, · In the second case the question is whether the living arrangements of a pair of severely mentally handicapped sisters (P & Q) could be viewed as a deprivation of liberty.
Information about the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary of England and Wales. Read the latest judgments, news and speeches. SHELAT, J.—This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta rejecting the application by the appellants for setting aside the award in Award Case No.
70 of passed by the Arbitration Tribunal constituted by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. 2.Download