Talk:Mistake in English contract law
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
mistaken identity
[edit]I want to add something like this about mistaken identity:
- Nemo dat quod non habet can come into play. Nemo dat quod non habet means "the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title." In cases below such as Cundy, Shogun and Averay, party A sells to B (the rogue) who sells the property obtained using a fake identity to party C. Once B is out of the picture, Party A then sues C for conversion and the court must decide who owns the property.
Unfortunately, I don't understand the cases and legal theory well enough to know if I really have it right. I also know that there are exception (such as in the next paragraph where there are only two parties). I know the key question is whether A or C loses out because of the fraudster and that turns on whether there was a valid contract. I believe the contract in question is often between A and B, but perhaps it is also between B and C?
And then there is also the case of the woman who contracted to lease from someone and used a new name so as to deceive the landlord who would not realize she had just gotten into trouble for running a rowdy establishment. That case has just the two parties.
Ultimately, I just want to make it simple so the reader can see A -> B -> C when thinking about these contracts. Maybe someone who understand this area of law can clear up my confusion so that I or they can explain it better to the reader. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 14 February 2018
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: move the page to Mistake (English law) per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Mistakes in English law → Mistake in English law – The article is about the legal concept of mistake (which is always expressed in the singular) but the title currently reads as if it is on mistakes that have been made in English law. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Move to Mistake (English law), a title that is more clear and more consistent with the naming of other related articles. Note that there are some other law mistakes listed at Mistake (disambiguation). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- Move to Mistake (English law) per BarrelProof or merge to Mistake (contract law). -- Netoholic @ 16:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.