In the case of John and Keith, Keith had no information that John did not have a valid driving licence free of endorsement. John, on the other hand, had entered into a contract with Keith, and he had sold him the car. Therefore, it was Keith’s responsibility to ensure that John had a valid driving licence free of endorsement. Another problem appears Keith and John were at consensus ad idem at the time of entering into the contract. Did John enter into the contract ready to cheat Keith into it?
John, on the other hand, may have not thought that a valid driving license free of endorsement was immensely beneficial. This was because Keith showed no interest in the verification of the license. However, an argument can be presented that John was fraudulent and made Keith believe that he had a valid driving license when in reality he did not own one. In a case of a contract like this, the contract is void for the mistake. It is also of paramount importance to note that such a distinction depends only on the manner into which the contract was made (P Atiyah and F Bennion 1961).
A contract made face to face, like that of Keith and John, has a strong presumption which is commonly inferred by courts that the seller always intends to contract with the customer. Therefore, in this situation of Keith and John it was much harder for John to get the insurance cover without giving fraudulent information. This principle can be further demonstrated in the case of Philip v Brooks (J Cartwright 1987). In this case, a man named Mr. North fraudulently claims to be Sir George Bollough and purchases a ring from Mr.
Phillips; later North sells the ring to Brooks Ltd. However, the check of North is dishonored, and Phillips sues Brook ltd (E. Allan Farnsworth 2010). This is another case of misrepresentation Brooks Ltd. Do not have any knowledge of where the ring came from, and the same applies to Keith. Therefore, Keith is not aware of the Motives of John and just like Brooks could have done nothing to it. John has also the benefit of consensus ad idem. At the time of contract, both parties were in agreement and thus, further change to the contract later was a breach of contract and john can sue Keith for it.
Therefore, Keith did not re- affirm the old idea of caveat emptor and, therefore, the contract was in a principle and thus, no ground for rescission of the contract. John may have also confused and thought that his driving license was valid. This would in turn mean that this was mistake of fact which is a defense in criminal law (Treitel 2011). This is regardless of whether it is reasonable or not. It is in this light that John may argue he had the notion that what he was doing was not criminal.
In the case of the Lewis vs. Averay, Lewis sells a car to a person who claimed to be Richard Greene, with a Cheque (450) which later is dishonored the fraudulent person then sells the car to Averay (200) (P Atiyah and F Bennion 1961). The contract according to me is void, and John should be sued for breach of contract. In accordance to the laws of contract, when one is entering into a contract he should disclose all relevant issues pertinent to the contract (Ubberima fides) (Epstein 2005). Therefore, John did not consider the principle of utmost good faith when entering into the contract and gave false
...Download file to see next pages Read More
