Abstract
In conclusion, the views of Lords Millett and Nicholls are generally to be preferred, as their Lordships make a genuine attempt to bring coherence to the law. It is, therefore, to be regretted that the majority decision has left the law as confused as it was before. As the House has failed to resolve the problem, the task must fall to Parliament. Any proposed legislation could provide a solution by either giving the courts power to apportion losses between the two innocent parties7 or, alternatively, by providing unequivocally that the effect of an identity mistake is to render a contract voidable.7 Both solutions have their supporters.76 Either would be better than the current position.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
