判决理由
In a written contract, the identity of the contracting parties is determined by the written document. A rogue who fraudulently assumes another's identity to obtain goods on hire purchase does not obtain title, and the innocent third-party purchaser from the rogue gets no title either.
事实
A rogue used a stolen driving licence to obtain a car on hire purchase in another person's name. He then sold the car to Mr Hudson.
判决摘要
The House of Lords held (3–2) that the hire purchase agreement was with the person named in the document, not the rogue. Since the rogue never obtained title, he could not pass title to Mr Hudson under the nemo dat rule.
关键引述
"Where the contract is in writing, the identity of the parties is a matter of construction of the written instrument."
— Lord Hobhouse
后续处理
Leading but controversial authority on mistake as to identity in written contracts.