Law Case Summary
Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 KB 243
Contract – Sale of Goods – Passing of Property – Fraud
Facts of Phillips v Brooks
Phillips was a jeweller. The fraudster purchased a ring from the jeweller with a cheque and signed his name “Sir George Bullough” and provided this person’s address. Phillips knew of Bullough and knew he lived at the address, so allowed him to take the ring before the cheque cleared. The purchaser subsequently turned out not to be ‘Sir George Bullough’. The fraudster then pledged the ring to a bona fide third party.
Issue in Phillips v Brooks
Whether Phillips could rely on mistake to identity to void the contract and seek possession/ownership of the ring.
Decision/Outcome of Phillips v Brooks
It was found that whilst the fraudster had indeed fraudulently purchased the ring there was no mistake as to identity due to the fact this contract was made face-to-face. Whilst fraudulent statements were made, the identity of the fraudster could not be considered ‘mistaken’. Importantly, a fraudulent contract is voidable (not void) and permits property to pass to bona fide third-party meaning Brooks Ltd was the legal owner of the ring.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Phillips v Brooks Ltd [1919] 2 KB 243 is still good law and continues to be cited as an important authority on mistake as to identity in face-to-face contracts, and on the distinction between void and voidable contracts in the context of fraudulent misrepresentation.
The principles described in this article were subsequently considered and largely affirmed by the House of Lords in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62, which remains the leading modern authority in this area. In Shogun, the majority confirmed that where a contract is made face-to-face, the presumption is that the seller intends to deal with the person physically present, so that any mistake goes only to attributes (such as creditworthiness) rather than identity, rendering the contract voidable rather than void. Students should read Phillips v Brooks alongside Shogun Finance, and also alongside Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198, which applied similar reasoning in a face-to-face context. The article correctly identifies the core consequence: because the contract was merely voidable and not void, title could pass to a bona fide third party before rescission, protecting Brooks Ltd’s position.
