Question: Natasha owns a jewellery shop in Islington, London. Rafael came into the shop, selected a ruby bracelet and paid for it. Rafael explained that he had an appointment to go to a concert that evening and asked if it would be alright to leave the bracelet with Natasha until the next day. A little later that afternoon, Weller, who looked exactly like the footballer, Cristiano Ronaldo, and had also had a strong Portuguese accent, came into the shop and selected the very same bracelet. Unfortunately, Natasha had failed to remove the bracelet from the display cabinet and had not put it in the safe to be held for collection by Rafael. Natasha then also allowed Weller to purchase and take away the bracelet after paying the 1,000 price of the bracelet by cheque, which was written out by Weller, who signed himself on the cheque as Ronaldo. Subsequently the police, who were contacted by Natasha when the cheque was dishonoured, traced the bracelet to a shop run by Bean in Croydon. It has been discovered that Weller has a stall at Bermondsey market in south London and that he sold the bracelet for 700 early one morning to Bean, a jewellery dealer, who considered at the time that he had a real bargain.

Advise Natasha, identify the issues then use at least 2 UK legislations and 2 caselaw pieces to support each argument/issue. Use IRAC or IPAC format to answer the problem question. I have attached a similar problem with answers for reference.

2 PROBLEM QUESTION On Monday a woman who claimed to be Professor Serene Pause of New York University persuaded Jeremy to take a cheque in payment for his car. On Wednesday Jeremy's bank told him that the cheque had been stolen and that the woman who had given it to Jeremy was a rogue pretending to be Professor Pause. Jeremy immediately asked the police to look out for the car. On Tuesday the rogue sold the car to Amy, who bought it in good faith. Advise Jeremy of his legal position 3 FEEDBACK Overview This is a typical problem question on mistake as to the person. This question covers two areas of law: misrepresentation and mistake as to the person. You will need to clearly explain the difference between a contract being void or being voidable, which is crucial to this answer. In this regard, as explained in Baskind et al, \"Where a contract is declared void ab initio, it means COM M ERCIAL LAW that there was never a contract at all and therefore no party can enforced the agreement" (301). By contrast You need to apply cases to give authority to your answer. Do not forget to advise the party who does not get the car of any rights that he or she may have against the rogue Structure 1. The starting point is that Jeremy is the legal owner of the car (assuming given there is nothing in the question to suggest otherwise that Jeremy was at the outset the owner of the car. 2. Next, the question that arises is whether the rogue, claiming to be Prof. Serene Pause, obtains title as a result of giving the cheque to Jeremy and his request to the police to \"look out for the car"? 3. It will be necessary to engage with whether the sale to Amy by the rogue, who has claimed to be Prof. Serene Pause, has had the effect of passing title? 4. In this last part, it will be necessary to engage with the point discussed in point 2 above relating to the fraud on Jeremy; the sale of goods by a buyer in possession; and also the implications for the transfer of title of a transaction with a person purchasing in good faith (and potentially for value). Analysis 1. Did the rogue make a representation? To decide this you will need to apply the denition of an actionable misrepresentation as to which see Marson 8f. Ferris (7.5) You are simply informed that, \"a woman who claimed to be Professor Serene Pause of New York University persuaded Jeremy to take a cheque in payment for his car." As Marson & Ferris point out, "Mistake in this area is linked with misrepresentation (7.4.2) and specically, "The mistake as to the identity of the parties occurs where one party believes they are negotiating with a particular person, when in reality they are As Marson & Ferris point out, "Mistake in this area is linked with misrepresentation (7.4.2) and specically, \"The mistake as to the identity of the parties occurs where one party believes they are negotiating with a particular person, when in reality they are dealing with someone else." An actionable misrepresentation is an untrue statement of fact which induced the other party to make the contract. It must be one of fact. Silence can be an actionable misrepresentation in certain circumstances, including when silence makes a statement misleading. There is a high standard of proof required to establish that a misrepresentation was fraudulent because this is a serious allegation. This is relevant because of the information you have not been provided, i.e. does Jeremy need to provide further details of events and in particular, what transpired between him and the rogue. The answer to this should be \"yes" and the reason for this is apparent when you consider the most relevant cases, i.e. what is the distinctions drawn between the COM M ERCIAL LAW various cases that may be relevant authorities depending on the precise nature of the facts. ingram v Little (although \"severely criticized" for deciding a contract was void in relation to mistake which prevented formation of the contract, would there be scope to be creative and argue the case could still be applied in the event it would benet Jeremy? Why might Jeremy want to argue the contract was void, rather than voidable? In Shogun, which has itself been criticized, the contract that was concluded at a distance was void after adequate checks to ascertain identity. Is there any aspect of the criticism of the case that might be relevant to the possible application of this case? See the 'General observations\"). Lewis vAveray (\"When a dealing is had between a seller like Lewis and a person who is actually present before him, then the presumption in law is that there is a contract" and consider whether being physically present should make the difference in a situation in which checks are made as to identity in light of criticisms of Shogun) Cundy v Lindsay (in which the contract was void and as explained by Shogun the key distinction is between transacting face to face or at a distance). Kings Norton Metal Co. Ltd v Edridge Merrett & Co Ltd (1897) 14 TLR 98 (CA) In light of the above, consider looking at why ingram v Little and Shogun have been criticized, in particular, what was Devlin L.J.'s dissent; and what did the minority in Shogun think, and more specically what Lord Millett say in Shogun in relation to lngram v Little (see fn. 53 on 302)? See the 'General observations' below. 2. Accordingly, what if you approach this transaction by asking if the contract may be void for mistake? Mistake as to the person denitely seems to be a possibility but will it apply if the parties met face to face; and is there a chance it might not be mistake as to identity? A mistake as to identity can make a contract void but only if the three conditions are satised: The parties must not have met face to face (we have a lack of facts, but even if they did meet face to face other issues must be considered). The mistake must have been as to the identity of the other party and not in respect of the other party's attributes (on the basis of the law discussed above, is the mistake properly to be regarded as relating to identity or attributes?) The mistake must be a material mistake, that is to say it must have mattered. In the event that Jeremy made his decision on the basis of his inquiries, as distinct from who he (may have been) told he was dealing with then was there a material mistake as to identity? 3. Is the contract void or voidable? Clearly show that you know the different effect of the contract being void or voidable COMMERCIAL LAW It would be appropriate to briey explain the difference between a contract being void and being voidable. A contract that can be rescinded for misrepresentation is said to be voidable. It can be avoided by letting the other contracting party know that it is no longer binding. If this is not possible then, in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation at least, it can be avoided by doing an act that shows a denite intention not to be bound by the contract This is quite different from the contract being void. A void contract is no contract and so confers no rights on anyone. Given the importance and various complexities the question of whether Jeremy has avoided the contract, and if so when, will be considered separately below. 4. What remedies might be available to Jeremy? This will depend on what type of misrepresentation was made. Simply because the discussion in Baskind et al. focuses on 523 506A 1979 does not mean you should ignore the possibility that there may be remedies other than avoiding the contract. All three types of misrepresentation allow the injured party to rescind or avoid the contract. However the contract is valid until it is avoided. Recission here means calling off the contract so that the parties are returned to the position they were in before the contract was made. On the basis of the available facts, this will be a fraudulent misrepresentation. In this particular case, you are unlikely to have any great difculty in justifying that Jeremy has the opportunity to avoid the contract given that the cheque used to pay for the vehicle was stolen and the person who presented was not Prof. Serene Pause. Although the focus (Le. the majority of your analysis) may be on avoiding the contract, it would be appropriate to note that both fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation under Misrepresentation Act 1967 allow the injured party to claim damages for the tort of deceit. You are simplytold to advise Jeremy and so you need to consider whether you have adequate information to advise in relation to damages. 5. Did Jeremy avoid the contract; and if so, when? You will need to consider whether the right to rescind may have been lost. As noted in Baskind et al., "[t]he most obvious way of avoiding a voidable contract in this type of situation is for the innocent party to inform the other party that the contract is no longer binding, or be evincing an intention to do so and by taking all possible steps, such as notifying the police in cases of fraud.\" (305). COMM ERCIAL LAW The relevant authority is Car & Universal Finance Co Ltd but note the observations about the effect being \"rather harsh\" and not without its difculties. Again, in light of these comments it would be appropriate to read the case. Baskind et al. set out criticisms but it is not clear what the reasoning was in the CA from the account in the text book. You will see the facts briey stated in Sealy & Hooley The right to rescind can be lost in the following ways: If the contract is afrmed. Afrmation can sometimes arise by reason of lapse of time but as regards fraudulent misrepresentation mere lapse of time will not prevent recession before the fraud has been discovered If a third party has acquired rights in the subject matter of the contract If it is not possible to restore the parties to their pre-contractual positions This is clearly potentially an active issue given that you are informed that "On Tuesday the rogue sold the car to Amy, who bought it in good faith.\" 6. Did Amy acquire good title? This will be important given that Jeremy is unlikely to be able to locate the rogue and, presumably, will want his car back. This raises a question of timing. The sale happened on Monday. On Tuesday the rogue sold the car and you should immediately consider the implications given Jeremy didn't know until Wednesday that the cheque had been stolen. As set out by Baskind et al., 'sale by a buyer in possession after sale' is an exception to nemo dot (308). In particular you should note that, \"in connection with 5.23 of the SGA 1979, where a party with a voidable title resells the goods to an innocent third party, then that third party will obtain good title provided that the original contract has not by then been avoided [...]\" {310). General observations There is a big difference between void and voidable. Should a mistake as to the person ever make a contract void, or is the approach taken by the minority of the HoL in Shogun better policy? Two Lords in the minority thought that Cundy v Lindsay should be overruled so that a contract was created with the rogue. Think of the situation in which a rogue gets goods from their owner without meeting the owner face to face and sells the goods to a third party. Who is more at fault? The original owner of the goods or the third party? Who gets the goods as the law now stands? There are other potential obvious transactions that may complicate the facts but which are not applicable here: what if an innocent third party (perhaps e.g. Amy) sells onwards? Or, what about a situation in which Jeremy believes he has title but in fact does not when he sells to the rogue, who is pretending to be Prof. Serene Pause