| Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) | [1965] 1 QB 525 |
Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation. It holds that an unequivocal act communicating the wish to rescind a contract can override third party rights. The communication does not need to go to the misrepresentor.
Mr Caldwell owned a Jaguar. A rogue named 'Mr Norris' convinced him to sell it for a £965 cheque and a £10 deposit. On 13 January when he tried to cash the cheque it was dishonoured. Mr Caldwell told the police and the Automobile Association straight away. Mr Norris sold the car to some dealers, who sold it on, and it was sold on again and again to Car and Universal Finance Ltd. They bought the car in good faith without any notice. The question was whether Caldwell had validly rescinded before the car was acquired by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
Lord Denning MR (sitting in the Queen's Bench) said the contract was validly rescinded. It was so without communication, but through an unequivocal act of election, demonstrating Caldwell no longer wished to be bound.
Seller LJ, on appeal said the ‘general rule, no doubt, is that where a party is entitled to rescind a contract and wishes to do so the contract subsists until the opposing party is informed that the contract has been rescinded. He noted that just because, ‘another innocent party or parties may suffer does not in my view of the matter justify imposing on a defrauded seller an impossible task.’
Upjohn LJ said if a party absconds and makes communication of rescission impossible, he cannot insist on his right to be made aware. ‘I think that the law must allow the innocent party to exercise his right of rescission otherwise than by communication or repossession.’
Davies LJ noted the old maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel the impossible).
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
In contract law, rescission is an equitable remedy which allows a contractual party to cancel the contract. Parties may rescind if they are the victims of a vitiating factor, such as misrepresentation, mistake, duress, or undue influence. Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract.
Voidable, in law, is a transaction or action that is valid but may be annulled by one of the parties to the transaction. Voidable is usually used in distinction to void ab initio and unenforceable.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
Vitol SA v. Norelf Ltd, The Santa Clara [1996] A.C. 800; [1996] 3 W.L.R. 105; [1996] 3 All E.R. 193, is an English contract law case about the effect of non-performance in accepting a contracting partner's repudiatory breach of contract.
Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation, mistake and breach of contract, and the limits to the equitable remedy of rescission.
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.
The Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Company (Limited) v Grant (1878–79) LR 4 Ex D 216 is an English contract law case concerning the "postal rule". It contains an important dissenting judgment by Bramwell LJ, who wished to dispose of it.
The Misrepresentation Act 1967 is a United Kingdom act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which amended the common law principles of misrepresentation. Prior to the Act, the common law deemed that there were two categories of misrepresentation: fraudulent and innocent. The effect of the act is primarily to create a new category by dividing innocent misrepresentation into two separate categories: negligent and "wholly" innocent; and it goes on to state the remedies in respect of each of the three categories.
Interpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement. This approach marks a break with previous a more rigid modes of interpretation before the 1970s, where courts paid closer attention to the formal expression of the parties' intentions and took more of a literal view of what they had said.
Dimmock v Hallett (1866–67) LR 2 Ch App 21 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.
Tenax Steamship Co v Owners of the Motor Vessel Brimnes [1974] EWCA Civ 15 is an English contract law case on agreement. It decided that communication of withdrawal of an offer by telex is effective when it could be read, rather than when it is in fact read.
Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It holds that a contract can be rescinded for innocent misrepresentation, even where the representee also had the chance to verify the false statement.
Long v Lloyd [1958] 1 WLR 753 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation. It exemplifies that if a contract is affirmed by the party who has been misrepresented, rescission will be barred.
William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1993] EWCA Civ 14 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It concerns the exercise of discretion under s 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace Ltd [2000] EWHC 221 (Comm) is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.
Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957] EWCA Civ 5 is an English contract law case, concerning the difference between a term and a representation.
South African contract law is "essentially a modernized version of the Roman-Dutch law of contract", and is rooted in canon and Roman laws. In the broadest definition, a contract is an agreement two or more parties enter into with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation. Contract law provides a legal framework within which persons can transact business and exchange resources, secure in the knowledge that the law will uphold their agreements and, if necessary, enforce them. The law of contract underpins private enterprise in South Africa and regulates it in the interest of fair dealing.
Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract. Denning LJ said,
... a contract will be set aside if the mistake of the one party has been induced by a material misrepresentation of the other, even though it was not fraudulent or fundamental; or if one party, knowing that the other is mistaken about the terms of an offer, or the identity of the person by whom it is made, lets him remain under his delusion and concludes a contract on the mistaken terms instead of pointing out the mistake.... A contract is also liable in equity to be set aside if the parties were under a common misapprehension either as to facts or as to their relative and respective rights, provided that the misapprehension was fundamental and that the party seeking to set it aside was not himself at fault.
Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 is a case in English contract law on fraudulent misrepresentation or "mistake" about identity.