Legal Case Summary
Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198
Contract – Title – Mistaken Identity – Good Faith – Fraud – Identity – Voidable
Facts
The complainant, Mr Lewis, was a postgraduate that wanted to sell his car. He met with somebody interested in buying the car, who was actually a rogue that was impersonating a famous actor, Richard Greene. They agreed on the price of £450 for the car and the rogue wanted to pay by cheque. Mr Lewis asked for identification before he agreed to accepting the cheque, with the rogue presenting a pass for Pinewood Studios and his name and photograph. Once the rogue had the car, he sold it onto the defendant, Mr Averay, for £200. The cheque he had given to Mr Lewis bounced, but the rogue had disappeared and could not be found.
Issues
The complainant argued that there was a mistake to the identity of the buyer, which meant that the contract with the rogue did not exist. Mr Lewis argued that the title had not passed, which means the car was still his property. The issue in this case was what the effect of mistaken identity was on a contract and whether there was a valid contract between Mr Lewis and the rogue for the car.
Decision / Outcome
It was held that the mistake to the real identity of the rogue did not prevent a valid contract being created between him and Mr Lewis. There was a face to face interaction, where the law presumes contract. However, this was fraud and impersonation by the rogue, which would render a contract voidable and it could be set aside. Yet, this must be done before a third party acquires the rights. In this case, the contract was not set aside before Mr Averay, in good faith, purchased the car.
Updated 19 March 2026
This summary accurately reflects the decision in Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 and the legal principles it established. The case remains good law on the question of mistaken identity in face-to-face contracts. The core principle — that where parties contract face to face, the law presumes the offeror intends to contract with the person physically present, rendering any resulting contract voidable rather than void — continues to be applied by English courts.
Readers should note that the law in this area was authoritatively confirmed by the House of Lords in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62, which drew a distinction between face-to-face dealings (where Lewis v Averay applies) and contracts concluded in writing with a named individual (where the contract may be void for mistake as to identity). Shogun Finance is now the leading authority and should be read alongside this case for a complete understanding of the current law. The underlying principles described in this summary are not affected by subsequent statutory changes.
