Impersonation

Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson HL TLR 20 November

A rogue, seeking to obtain a car under a hire purchase agreement, pretended to be a Mr Durlabh Patel living at an address in Leicester. As proof of his identity he had produced Mr Patel’s driving licence, which he had obtained improperly. The claimant had checked Mr Patel’s credit rating. Finding it to be satisfactory, it had instructed the motor dealer that had been dealing with the crook to let the crook have the car. Mr Patel had known nothing of those goings-on. The crook then sold the car to the defendant and promptly disappeared. Did Mr Hudson get a good title to the car? ‘Yes,’ said two of the five members of the House. Shogun had authorised the dealer to hand over the car to the person in the showroom, he being, as Shogun knew, the person who had signed the agreement, and as it believed, the person whose credit rating it had checked. Its mistaken belief had not negated its intention to let the car on hire to the person in the showroom on the terms in the hire purchase agreement. Nor could the crook have asserted that he had no contractual intention when he had signed the agreement, albeit using a false name and address. ‘No,’ said the remaining three members of the House, Mr Hudson did not obtain a good title because of the basic principle, applicable to hire purchase, of ‘nemo dat quod non habet’, the hire purchaser had no title to the goods and therefore no power to convey any title to a third party: that title and that power remained with the hire purchase company alone. The relevant question was of the application of the provisions of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 to the facts of the case, no more no less. Thus the question became: ‘Was the rogue a debtor under the agreement?’ Mr Patel was the sole hirer under the agreement. No one else had acquired any rights under it. No one else could become the bailee of the car or the debtor under the agreement. There had been no consensus ad idem between Shogun and the rogue, therefore, by a majority of 3–2 the House held that the innocent purchaser did not acquire good title.