Ingram v Little  1 QB 31
A rogue sought to purchase a car from the claimants. He presented a cheque as payment for the car, but the claimants refused to accept the cheque stating that only payment by cash was acceptable. The rogue then claimed to be one P. G. M. Hutchinson, after which the claimants tried to verify the identity claimed by the rogue. Convinced that the rogue was P. G. M. Hutchinson after verification, the claimants accepted the cheque and handed over the car to the rogue. When the cheque was dishonoured the next day, the claimants sought to recover the car from the defendant who had obtained the car from the rogue.
1. Whether the contract between the claimants and the rogue was void on grounds of mistake of identity.
1. That the contract between the claimants and the rogue was void on grounds of mistake of identity.
The Court of Appeal held that the claimants, Hilda and Elsie Ingram, only intended to contract with P. G. M. Hutchinson when they accepted payment by cheque. This holding was based on the reasoning that the claimants had refused to conclude the contract with the physically-present rogue, and only concluded the transaction when they believed that the rogue was P. G. M. Hutchinson.