Location of Repository

Mistake of Identity: A Comparative Analysis

By Sean Thomas

Abstract

This article notes that English courts deal with voidable title conflicts by attempting to find whether there is a contract between the original owner of goods and the rogue whose actions made such contract void or voidable. This position has become entrenched following the decision of the House of Lords in Shogun Finance v. Hudson. A comparative analysis with the law of the United States indicates a superior alternative: there is no need for a contract between the original owner and the rogue.Peer reviewedPost prin

Publisher: Informa Law and Finance
Year: 2008
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/10084
Journal:

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1963). 38 doi
  2. (1963). 38 Ind L J 675, 687-688: “Certainly the transfer of possession in larceny by trick is voluntary”. See also C L Knapp, “Protecting the Buyer of Previously Encumbered Goods: Another Plea for Revision of UCC Section 9-307(1)”
  3. Credit v. doi
  4. (1975). it is perhaps worth noting that the UCC fails to cover any other types of common law mistake which can affect the validity of the transaction between original owner and middleman:
  5. (1965). Security Interests in Personal Property (Little, Brown and Co.,
  6. (1996). See eg Silver Dollar City v. Kitsmiller Construction (MoApp
  7. (1955). The Supposed Doctrine of Mistake in Contract: A Comedy of Errors”
  8. (1999). v Dickson (TexApp

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.