WebShogun Finance Ltd v Hudson (2003) HL Content of the contract. The parole evidence rule. The presence of the oral "face-to-face" contract for purchase of goods wasn't affirmed due to the presence of the written hire-purchase contract. Other sets by this creator 26 terms 19 terms andrew_mikryukov 15 terms andrew_mikryukov Verified questions WebDec 19, 2003 · Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 is an English contract law case decided in the House of Lords, on the subject of mistaken identity as a basis for rescission of a contract. The case has been the subject of much criticism in failing to effectively clarify the area of mistake to identity.
Mistake in Contract Law - LawTeacher.net
WebShogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 is an English contract law case decided in the House of Lords, on the subject of mistaken identity as a basis for rescission of a contract. … WebMay 13, 2024 · Cited – Shogun Finance Limited v Hudson HL 19-Nov-2003 Thief acquired no title and could not sell A purchaser used a stolen driving licence to obtain credit for and purchase a car. He then purported to sell it to the respondent, and then disappeared. The finance company sought return of the car. Held: (Lords Nicholls and Millett . . bow wow age in roll bounce
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson - INFOGALACTIC
WebShogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 Facts: A dealer sold a car to a fraudster posing as Mr. Patel. This name was used on the Hire-Purchase agreement w/ Patel's license used as ID. The fraudster sold it to Hudson (innocent TP). Held: When the contract is written, it can only be b/w the people named in the contract. WebNov 27, 2024 · Appeal from – Norman Hudson v Shogun Finance Ltd CA 28-Jun-2001. A rogue had purchased a car, using a false name to obtain finance. He had then sold it to the defendant. The finance company claimed the car back. Held: The dealer had not taken all the steps he might have done to check the identity of the . . WebAug 1, 2005 · Under S. 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964, Mr. Hudson could have retained the car lawfully if he could prove that the agreement between the rogue and Shogun was merely voidable by the latter. gun shop west newfield maine