2. Mistake as to the identity of a party: These situations involve fraud. The problem can arise in 2 ways:
1. Face 2 Face: The identity must be crucial for a contract for it to be VOID. In cases that involve creditworthiness the contract won't be VOID. - Identity = Void; Creditworthiness = Not Void.
CASE: "Phillips v Brooks". In this case the claimant bought a necklace and a ring. He gave a fake name and asked to pay by cheque. The jeweller checked his name and address in the telephone directory. The cheque bounced but the ring had already been sold to a pawnbroker. HELD: Not void as the mistake wasn't crucial enough and was an issue of creditworthiness not identity.
CASE: "Ingram v Little". In this case 3 elderly sisters advertised their car for sale. A rogue offered to buy the car by cheque. They refused at first but he gave false information regarding his credentials which the old ladies checked in the telephone directory and accepted the cheque but it bounced. HELD: Identity was crucial in this situation and was ... void for mistake and the car was returned to the old ladies as the courts felt sorry for them.
CASE: "Lewis v Avery". This case concerned the sale of a car which a rogue bought by cheque, using false credentials, but the cheque bounced. HELD: This was a matter of creditworthiness and not identity ... Mistake wasn't operative and wasn't void.