ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANT (1) Can Blocks prove that he intended to deal with some person other than

David? Though Mr Blocks intended to contract with Giles and not David, he is unable to prove this therefore, Mrs C has good title to the clock. Hardman v Booth Mrs C is an innocent purchaser in this case and has acquired good title to this clock for lack of proof that Mr B has that shows that he intended to contract with Mr G. (2) Mr B didnt take any steps whatsoever to disaffirm the contract with David therefore; Mrs C who is the ITP in this case still has good title to the clock as was seen in the case of Lewis v Avery. (This was a face to face transaction and Mr B didnt take reasonable steps to verify the identity of whom he was dealing with.) (3) Lord Denning's Judgment in the case of Lewis v Avery The real question in the case is whether there

was a contract for sale under which the property in the car passed from the M.L to the rogue. If there was such a contract, even though it was voidable for fraud, nevertheless, M.A would get a title to the car... (Since this was a face to face transaction between both parties Mr. B and Mr. D didnt take reasonable steps to verify the identity of the person with him he was dealing. (3B) Lord Justice Phill in the same case above Mr Avery bought it bona fide without any notice of fraud and accordingly, he thereby as I think, acquired a good title (4) There was a de-facto contract between the parties Morton CJ says In the cases before us, there was a defacto contract, purporting and by which the plaintiffs intended to pass the property and possession of the goods to the person buying them and we are of the

opinion that the property did pass to the swindler who bought the goods There was an intention to go into a contract despite being based on fraudulent misrepresentation, the activities of both parties would be referred to as a contract because the basic elements of a contract where present in this circumstance and therefore the seller has passed title to the buyer of the goods which he has sold to him. (5) Bell v Lever Brothers Where both parties enter into a contract under a false and fundamental assumption, then as a general rule, the contract is valid. If the contract between MP and R is void for mistake to identity, R will not have acquired any title to pass to the ITP so that MP can recover the goods from ITP or sue in tort for conversion

If the contract between the MP and R is merely voidable for the fraudulent misrepresentation, R obtained title to goods which R can pass onto ITP since MPs remedy is a personal remedy of rescission as against R, it is lost once an ITP purchases the good and cannot be recovered (Jill Poole Law of Torts 2012) Lord Denning in Lewis v Avery A mistake as to the identity, it is said avoids a contract where as a mistake to attributes does not. But this is a distinction without a difference... A mans very name is one of his

attributes... If the name of David who poses as Giles in this is case is part of his attribute, then we can say that he has made a contract (de-facto) with Mr B therefore, he has good title to the clock and can pass it to an ITP who in this case is Mrs C. Lord Denning When two parties have come to a contract or rather what appears, on the face of it to be a contract, the fact that one party is mistaken as to the

identity of the other does not means that there is no contract, or that the contract is a nullity and void from the beginning. It only means that the contract is voidable, that is, liable to be set aside at the instance of the mistaken person so long as he does so before the 3rd parties have in good faith acquired rights to it. This contract was not avoided by Mr B as he went ahead to make the sale of the clock for a rather inflated price because he believed that it was a good bargain based on the initial price which the clock was

advertised for and since he didnt set aside this contract before it passed to Mrs C, she therefore has good title to the clock which she has bought from David.