Aşağıda bir kısmını gördüğünüz bu dokümana sadece Profesyonel +
pakete abone olan üyelerimiz erişebilir.
b.Face-to-face / eyeball cases
In Phillips v Brooks a man (Norton) purchased some jewellery (pearls and rings) for £3,000 using a cheque, representing to the jeweller that he was a Sir George Bullough residing at St James’s Square. The jeweller was aware of such an individual, and allowed Norton to walk off with the jewellery after having checked the address for Sir George Bullough in the directory and thinking that was transacting with Sir George. Norton was offered to take all items, but he replied to say: “You had better have the cheque cleared first, but I should like to take the ring as it is my wife’s birthday tomorrow.”…
Similar facts arose in a later case: Ingram v Little.…
It is difficult to reconcile Ingram with Phillips. That is probably why the Court of Appeal a little over a decade after it distinguished it on its facts and reached a different outcome in a similar case: Lewis v Averay.
For completeness, the House of Lords in Shogun Finance v Hudson…
“It has been suggested that the finance company was willing to do business with anyone, whatever their name. But this is not correct: it was only willing to do business with a person who had identified himself in the way required by the written document so as to enable it to check before it enters into any contractual or other relationship that he meets its credit requirements. Mr Durlabh Patel was such an identified person and met its credit requirements so it was willing to do business with him.”…
His Lordship continued:…
“The correct approach in the present case is to treat the agreement as one concluded in writing and to approach the identification of the parties to that agreement as turning upon its construction. The particulars given in the agreement are only capable of applying to Mr Patel. It was the intention of the rogue that they should identify Mr Patel as the hirer. The hirer was so identified by Shogun. Before deciding to enter into the agreement they checked that Mr Patel existed and that he was worthy of credit. On that basis they decided to contract with him and with no-one else. Mr Patel was the hirer under the agreement. As the agreement was concluded without his authority, it was a nullity. The rogue took no title under it and was in no position to convey any title to Mr Hudson.”…
That was a case where the fraudster had purchased a car on hire-purchase terms using…
a.In writing cases
2.Ambiguity in agreement
EN
TR
