The plaintiff cannot claim compensation for mistake of identity

Kandeep Shravan | SASTRA Deemed to be University | 23rd July 2020

Phillips Vs Brooks

FACTS:

The facts of this case are a swindler by name north visited a firm of jewelers and representing himself to be the Sir George Bullough respectable person of credit, purchase a diamond ring for 450€ by issuing cheque which was dishonored. He subsequently pledged the ring with a pawnbroker. The jeweler had parted with the ring only in the belief that he was dealing with Sir George Bullough. When he discovered the mistake he sued for recovering the jewel from the pawnbroker. He contended that there was an error in consensu as it was a mistake regarding the person with whom he was contracting. Such a mistake would render the contract void. No property would pass to the north and so that pawnbroker would not have any legal interest in the ring. This contention was however rejected.

ISSUES:

Whether the plaintiff has the right to recover the ring

LEGAL PROVISION:

Section 22 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

PLAINTIFF CONTENTION:

The plaintiff contended that the ring belongs to the plaintiff has the cheque which was given to him for the purchase of the ring is seems to be dishonored so as of now the defendant had did not pay the money for the purchase of the ring. So the plaintiff has the right to recover the ring from the pawnbroker.

DEFENDANT CONTENTION:

The defendant contended that the ring was pledged by Sir George Bullough. And the defendant contended that he did not know that the cheque to the plaintiff given by Sir Bullough was dishonored so he is not liable to give the ring to the plaintiff.

OBSERVATION MADE BY THE COURT:

The court observed all the contention of all the plaintiff and the defendant and held that the seller was contracting with a person who was physically before him and whom he had identified by sight and hearing. The error was only in the inducing cause. It was an error in causa it was induced by misrepresentation and might render the contract voidable. The property in the ring however would pass to the north through the action might be brought against him for the misrepresentation. 

JUDGMENT:

The court held that the plaintiff could not recover the ring from the defendant.