Phillips v Brooks Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1919 |
| Date | 1919 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
18 cases
-
Lewis v Averay
...effect of this mistake? There are two cases in our books which cannot, to my mind, be reconciled the one with the ether. One of them is Phillips v. Brooks, 1919 2 K. B. 243, where a jeweller had a ring for sale. The other is Ingram v. Little, 1964 1 Q.B. 31, where two ladies had a car for ......
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Gomez
...can only be answered by reference to civil law principles." 104Accordingly, it is both proper and rational to rely on such cases as Phillips v. Brooks Ltd. [1919] 2 K.B. 243 and Lewis v. Averay [1972] 1 Q.B. 198, 105My Lords, having drafted this speech, I then had the pleasure and advanta......
-
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
...C in that belief. The fraud entitles O to avoid the contract, but it does not negative the formation of a contract with C. 19 Thus in Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 KB 243 Horridge J held that the jeweller contracted to sell the ring to the crook in the shop who represented he was Sir Georg......
- Citibank N.A. v Brown Shipley & Company Ltd
Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
-
VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — THE INTERACTION OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
...mistake). 39 [1991] 2 All ER 690. 40 Ibid at 699 (emphasis added). 41 Ibid at 700 (emphasis added). 42 Ibid at 702 (emphasis added). 43 [1919] 2 KB 243; criticised by Goodhart, “Mistake as to Identity in the Law of Contract”(1941) 57 LQR 228 at 240—241. 44 [1919] 2 KB 243 at 246. 45 Ibid at......
-
Mistake
...v Little , the plaintiffs were three joint owners of a car who had advertised it for sale. Approached by a rogue who offered to 48 [1919] 2 KB 243. See also, Ellyatt v Little , [1947] 1 DLR 700 (Ont HCJ) (seller was indifferent as to whom he dealt with — contract not void). And see Vancouve......
-
VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW — SOME KEY CONCEPTS AND DEVELOPMENTS
...heavily from Phang, Lee & Koh, supra n 43. 48 And see generally the “infamous” trilogy of cases comprising Phillips v Brooks, Limited[1919] 2 KB 243; Ingram v Little[1961] 1 QB 31; and Lewis v Averay[1972] 1 QB 198, which are, inter alia, discussed in Phang, supra n 1. 49 (1878) 3 App Cas 4......
-
TRANSSEXUALS AND SEX DETERMINATION
...performed.” 101 C and D, p. 527. 102“Sexual Identity and the Law of Nullity”, [1980] 54. The Australian Law Journal 115 at p. 118. 103 [1919] 2 K.B. 243. 104 135 Mass 283. 105 This is implicit in CandD when Bell J says: “The ground of identity is in my opinion made out in that the wife was ......