Mistake in contract can make a impart on the outcome of a transaction. It can also affect the interest and right of a third party. The Law presumes that anyone a party contracted with is who he intend to contract with. However there are instance where a person who alleged that he contracted with the wrong person.
The party alleging mistake must establish that there was mistake as to the identity in order to nullify the contract.
Mistake as to identity can be divided into
1.inter absentes
2.Inter presentes
INTER ABSENTES:This means "at a distance".This is where parties to a contract are not in close physical contact when the contract is made.This can be transaction contracted through post, telephone.Where one party raise the defence that he made mistake as to who he contract as he intend to contract with another person.The burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the mistake of identity.The mistake as to their characteristics is not sufficient. In CINDY V. LINDSAY (1878) 3 App Cases.,a rogue name Blankenship,rented an apartment in a street where a reputable firm called Blankiron and sons trades.The rogue ordered for a large quantity of handkerchiefs under the pretense of Blenkiron and sons.The goods was delivered to the address of Blenkarn and payment was not made.The rogue later sold the goods to the defendant who bought the goods in Good faith.The claimant brought an action for conversion against the defendant to recover the value of the handkerchiefs supplied. The court held that the contract between the claimant and the rogue was void as the claimant was able to prove an identifiable business they actually intend to transact with.Therefore the defendant has no valid title passed to him.
For the mistaken party to successfully plead unilateral mistake as to identity, he must establish that
1.He intend to contract with someone else other than the person he apparently contracted with.
2.His intention to contract with someone else was known to the other party he apparently contracted with.
3.The identity of the other party is crucially important to the transaction.
4.The verification of identity by the innocent party.
INTER PRAESENTES:
This means "face to face transaction".This is Where a person contracted with another face to face.Where parties contracted face to face,the Law presumed that that is the person you intend to contract with and such contract cannot be render void to mistake as to identity.
In PHILIPS V.BROOKS (1878) 3 KB 243,a rogue purchase a jewelry from the claimant claiming to be one Sir George Bullogy. HE made payment in cheque.He gave the address of Sir George Bullogy in case of any problem with the cheque.The cheque turned out to be fake.Whereas the rogue has pawned the ring at the defendant pawn broker under the name of Mr Firth for £350 and disappeared. The claimant instituted an action on the ground of unilateral mistake as to identity. The court held that the contract between the claimant and the rogue was not void for mistake ad the claimant contracted with who he saw.