Shogun finance ltd v hudson. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2004] 1 A.C. 919 2022-10-04
Shogun finance ltd v hudson Rating:
9,1/10
1101
reviews
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson is a leading UK case that deals with the issue of consumer credit and the rights of borrowers. The case involved a dispute between Shogun Finance, a consumer credit company, and Mr. Hudson, a borrower who had taken out a loan from the company.
In this case, Mr. Hudson had taken out a loan from Shogun Finance in order to purchase a car. However, he was unable to make the required payments and defaulted on the loan. As a result, Shogun Finance repossessed the car and sold it, seeking to recover the remaining debt from Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson argued that the repossession of the car and the sale were unlawful, as Shogun Finance had not followed the proper procedures for recovering the debt.
The case was heard in the High Court, where the judge ruled in favor of Mr. Hudson. The judge held that Shogun Finance had not followed the proper procedures for recovering the debt, and therefore the repossession of the car and the sale were unlawful. The judge ordered Shogun Finance to pay Mr. Hudson compensation for the loss of the car, as well as legal costs.
This case is significant because it highlights the importance of consumer rights in the area of consumer credit. It shows that lenders must follow proper procedures when seeking to recover debts from borrowers, and that borrowers have the right to challenge any unlawful actions taken by lenders.
The decision in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson has had a lasting impact on consumer credit law in the UK. It has set a precedent for future cases involving the recovery of debts and the rights of borrowers, and has helped to ensure that lenders are held accountable for their actions. It has also helped to protect the rights of consumers and ensure that they are treated fairly in the credit market.
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) childhealthpolicy.vumc.org
The plaintiff, who knew of the existence of Sir George Bullough, referred to a directory and found that Sir George did, indeed, live at that address. The jeweller had heard of Sir George Bullough and checked he lived at the address given. Moreover, as previously discussed in the law of fraudulent misrepresentation permits such a contract to be voided. At one end of the spectrum is the confidence trickster who falsely but convincingly asserts that he is a baronet or a barrister, or a brain surgeon in order to inspire confidence and obtain credit. There is one important exception to this principle.
Whether the parties have reached agreement on the terms is not determined by evidence of the subjective intention of each party. You will have to compensate the supplier if you do not return the goods immediately or if you have not taken proper care of them. The fact that the seller was induced to sell by fraud of the buyer made the sale voidable, but not void. Lord Penzance at pp. Moreover, the majority decision gave account for the original contract and the law with respect to enforcing that contract. Lindsay This is because of the fact that B never thought of A and never intended to deal with him. Lindsay parted with their linen by sending it to the address supplied by the crook.
Impersonation of that sort must be very rare indeed, and probably limited to deception of those whose senses are impaired as Isaac was when, according to Chapter 27 of Genesis, Jacob successfully impersonated his elder twin brother Esau. But once it is established that the person whose name and other personal details are stated in the contract and the person who stated them and signed the contract are not the same, the question immediately arises: which of them should be treated as the counterparty? On appeal by the defendantÑ Held , dismissing the appeal Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Millett dissenting , that under section 21 1 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 the title to the vehicle had at all material times been in the claimant and accordingly the defendant could not have acquired title to it from the fraudster save under the provisions of section 27 of the 1964 Act; that the purported contract between the fraudster and the claimant was constituted by the hire-purchase agreement under which the hirer purported to be the person named on the driving licence, and oral evidence could not be adduced to contradict the terms of the written agreement so as to demonstrate that, in a face-to-face transaction, the fraudster had been the true hirer; that, in any event, there had not been the necessary consensus ad idem between the fraudster and the Þnance company; and that, accordingly, the fraudster had not been the debtor under the agreement within the meaning of section 29 4 of the 1964 Act and the defendant had not acquired title to the vehicle under the provisions of section 27 post, paras 42 Ð 47 , 49 Ð 50 , 117 , 119 , 166 Ð 170 , 178 , 180 , 183 , 191 , 193. It is not clear whether the parties entered into an agreement subject to contract, but if they did it would have been signed by Mr. There can be little doubt that the friend who bought the ticket could have made use of it to gain admission himself. To say, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough does, that it is a question of construction which admits of only one answer, with respect simply begs the question. The short report records the reasoning of A. Explain the rules and support your explanation fully with relevant cases.
The case is treated in the textbooks as an example of a contract which is void for unilateral mistake, but this was not the basis of the decision. There can be no doubt that a contract would have been concluded between Shogun and Mr Patel. Their minds were never in consensus and thus a contract was never formed. This is true, whether the contract is oral or in writing. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. The title to the goods and the power to transfer that title to any third party remains with the hire purchase company and with it alone. The defendant had had previous dealings with Brockenhurst and proposed to set off against the price a debt owed by Brockenhurst.
But no contract will be formed when a person accepting an offer believes on reasonable grounds that he is accepting an offer from someone other than the person by whom it has in fact been made, i. He does not need a contract, for he is content with possession without title. He selected some pearls and a ring and wrote out a cheque for the total price of £3,000. The evidence showed that tickets for a first night are not transferable, from which it follows that they are incapable of being bought for an undisclosed principal; so that even on its own terms the contract could not be enforced by the plaintiff. It arises where the two persons, A and B, are not known to each other and where A gives a name which is not his own. He said at p. The fraudster took physical possession of the car.
Our address is 116 Cockfosters Road, Barnet EN4 0DY. They are clear and sound and need no revision. In former, contract is void but in latter it is not because in order to establish mistake as to identity, the party contracting must prove that it wanted to contract only with the person with whom it stipulated the agreement to be but turned to be otherwise. Is the customer to be identified as the person who produces the card? The House held that they were not. Conclusion: Since Shogun wanted to deal only with Mr. Before all the stages in the process have been completed. On that basis they concluded that the putative hirer was Mr Patel and that, as the apparent contract was concluded without his authority, it was a nullity.
The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. The case has usually been taken to be an example of a contract which is void for mistake. From his point of view the supposed contract is merely a pretence to enable him to get hold of goods without paying for them. But it was still a contract, though voidable for fraud. Hector Senior was established as a fact. It is quite true the plaintiff in re-examination said he had no intention of making any contract with any other person than Sir George Bullough; but I think I have myself to decide what is the proper inference to draw where a verbal contact is made and an article delivered to an individual describing himself as somebody else. The difficulty for the law lords in the Shogun case was drawing a distinction between what constitutes the credit worthiness of the actual purchaser and what constitutes the actual details of the fraudster.
Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 (19 November 2003)
The making of an Act of Parliament: the procedure by which a legislative proposal is translated into an Act of Parliament is long and complicated. On the claimantÕs action against the defendant for, inter alia, damages for conversion the defendant counterclaimed that he had acquired good title to the vehicle within the meaning of section 27 of the Hire- Purchase Act 1964 1. Specialised areas are: 1. He then permitted North to take away the ring before the cheque was cleared. The majority of the Court of Appeal in the present case considered that this decision weighed conclusively in favour of Shogun.
One of the vendors went to the local post office and ascertained from the telephone directory that there was indeed a Mr P. Where, however, the dealings are exclusively conducted in writing, there is no scope or need for such a presumption. In that case, where the contract was entered into by correspondence, the rogue assumed a fictitious name in order to give a spurious impression of respectability. Hutchinson and gave an address in Caterham. The dealer faxed to the claimant hire-purchase company a copy of the licence and a draft hire- purchase agreement that the fraudster had signed, forging the signature on the licence. I agree with that conclusion.
It was concerned with a contract entered into by correspondence. Unilateral mistake is mean that is only one party is mistaken, but the other party knows, or ought reasonably to be aware of the mistake. Assume further that he had been authorised to do so by Mr Patel. I shall refer to some examples. Therefore they wished to deal with that customer specifically and not anyone whose details were sent to them.
