| Citation | [1919] 2 KB 243 |
| Date of Judgment | 1 May 1919 |
| Court | King’s Bench |
| Claimant | Phillips |
| Defendant | Brooks |
| Bench | Sir Thomas Gardner Horridge |
| Referred | Section-20,21,22 of The Indian Contract Act |
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case, a complaint was by Phillips against Brook. The relevant facts of the case are as Phillips was a seller of goods and worked in a shop. North, who entered into the shop and claimed himself as Sir George Bullough. Moreover, the address presented by North matched with the one of Sir George Bullough, he made the payment for the goods by cheque of Euro 3000 and bought an emerald and diamond ring. Phillips accepted the payment and handed over the goods to North, thinking he was dealing with Sir George Bullough. North, then sold the goods to a third party, Brooks, by claiming his ownership of the goods. Later, Phillips found that the cheque was false as when he tried to cash the cheque, it bounced. As a result of which Phillips sued Brooks.
ISSUES
- Whether the contract between claimant and North was void on the grounds of a unilateral as to the identity of North?
- Whether or not the defendant obtained a valid title?
ARGUMENTS
The prosecution argued on the fact that North disguised himself as Sir George Bullough, otherwise Phillips would have never allowed him to enter the shop or took anything. Since, the ownership of the ring was not passed to North, he has no right to sell the good. As a result of which Brooks lacked the ownership as North didn’t have the right for the same. Defense argued that since the consideration for the goods i.e., the cheque was paid and the same was accepted by Phillips, it is a valid contract. Thus, the ownership is also transferred and the contract entered into with Brooks is valid. So, Phillips cannot sue him for the recovery of the cost.
JUDGEMENT
The decision of the court was in favor of the defendant.
It was held that since the contract was made face to face in the presence of Phillips, it is a valid contract and no mistake as to identity is to be considered. Since the defendant purchased the ring from Phillips and paid him the consideration as against the transaction of the ring, it shall be the rightful owner of the ring. All elements of a contract to the sale are present in this transaction and hence the validity of the contract cannot be denied. Thus, the defendant cannot be denied possession of the said ring.
Therefore, the complaint against the defendant was dismissed.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Palak Kumari of Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments