Site icon swarb.co.uk

Ingram v Little; 27 Jul 1960

References: [1961] 1 QB 31, [1960] EWCA Civ 1
Links: Bailii
Coram: Pearce LJ and Devlin LJ
Two ladies had a car for sale. A buyer came along. He fooled them into believing him to be someone else, and they sold him the car, after checking the name in the telephone directory. Before the cheque bounced, the rogue sold the car to the defendant from whom the ladies now sought the return of the car.
Held: Applying the rule nemo debt quod non habet, the car remained the property of original owners. Phillips v Brooke differed in that property had passed before the misrepresentation (majority). Devlin LJ dissenting: ‘The true spirit of the common law is to override theoretical distinctions when they stand in the way of doing practical justice. For the doing of justice, the relevant question in this sort of case is not whether the contract was void or voidable, but which of two innocent parties shall suffer for the fraud of a third. The plain answer is that the loss should be divided between them in such proportion as is just in all the circumstances. If it be pure misfortune, the loss should be borne equally; of the fault or imprudence of either party has caused or contributed to the loss, it should be borne by that party in the whole or in the greater part.’
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 03-Mar-16 Ref: 188418

Exit mobile version