A summary of the opinions of the lords of appeal for judgement in the case shogun finance limited vs

inter absentes

The finance company verify from the electoral register the licence-holder's name and address and check that no outstanding debts are registered against him. In this case the rogue had cheated the seller by making him believe that he was indeed Mr Patel by producing false identification and thus inducing the seller into I believe it would be useful if Parliament were now to consider whether or not it is practicable by means of a similar act of law reform to provide for the victims of a fraud a better way of adjusting their mutual loss than that which has grown out of the common law.

Page number 2 shows the address recorded for Durlabh Patel as 45 Mayflower Road, Leicester and that he had resided there for 9 years.

lewis v averay

Grant, sitting at Leicester County Court on 13 Januaryis correct. That finding of fact was no doubt based on the evidence of Ms.

cundy v lindsay

Page 5 confirms Mr Patel's date of birth and also confirms his name and employer including his occupation and confirming also his driving licence number. It is the end-buyer who, having parted with a large sum of money, now finds himself either parting with the vehicle for which he has paid it or, if he wants to keep it, parting with a similar sum over again to the finance company.

The original seller?

Shogun finance v hudson summary

Without falling into the error of determining law simply by factual similarity or difference, I would hold that the claimant finance company, using the dealer as its agent, had in law contracted face-to-face with a fraudsman in circumstances insufficient to rebut the presumption that it was with him, and not with the person he claimed to be, that they were contracting. The question in the present case is therefore whether the rogue had the vehicle on hire purchase, or whether the transaction he had induced the claimants to enter into was a legal nullity, making him not a bailee of the vehicle until the agreement was terminated but a thief from the start. It is well known and would have been known to the dealer and customer that the Plaintiff would undertake credit enquiries of the customer, and would rely on the result of these enquiries in deciding whether to grant credit to the customer, as is indeed the case. With one exception those cases are entirely concerned with transactions between individuals fact to fact entering into oral agreement. Brooks, in New Zealand in Fawcett v. The licence was genuine but had been stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained. Lewis made a contract under which he sold the car to the rogue, delivered the car and the logbook to him, and took a cheque in return. It has variously been referred to as a "principle" and a "presumption". As Pearce LJ pointed out in Ingram v.

Mr Bailey telephoned the claimants' sales support centre, gave their new business clerk the details which the rogue had provided and faxed to them a copy of the driving licence followed by the draft agreement signed by the rogue using Mr Patel's name.

Rated 8/10 based on 70 review
Hudson v. Shogun Finance CA