Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198
Facts
Lewis advertised his car for sale. A rogue approached him in person, claimed to be a well-known actor and offered a cheque. Lewis accepted the cheque and allowed him to take the car. The rogue then sold it to Averay, who bought in good faith. The cheque was dishonoured, and Lewis discovered the deception. He sought the car's value from Averay in conversion, arguing that his mistake about the rogue's identity prevented title passing. The appeal concerned whether the original transaction was void or merely voidable when the onward sale occurred.
Legal Issue
Was the face-to-face sale induced by impersonation void or voidable, and could Averay acquire ownership before Lewis avoided the fraudulent transaction?
Held
The Court of Appeal held that the sale to the rogue was voidable for fraud rather than void from the outset. Lewis dealt face to face with the person who presented himself as the buyer, and the false claim to be a well-known actor did not displace that contractual identity on these facts. Before Lewis avoided the transaction, Averay acquired the car in good faith. The original seller therefore could not recover it from him through conversion. Lord Denning expressed a broader view about identity mistakes, but the case's face-to-face setting must be distinguished from written identity cases such as Shogun Finance v Hudson. The latter did not simply abolish this ordinary face-to-face result.
⭐ Legal Principle
In an ordinary face-to-face sale, fraudulent impersonation generally makes the transaction voidable rather than void: the seller is normally contracting with the person present. An innocent purchaser may acquire protected title before avoidance, subject to the applicable statutory requirements and exceptions.
Significance
Lewis provides the principal contrast with Ingram v Little and written identity cases. Its importance lies in how formation and title interact: avoiding a fraudulent sale too late may leave an innocent purchaser protected. A sound answer identifies the person with whom the seller objectively contracted, the form of the transaction and the timing of any rescission. Do not present Lord Denning's broader language as resolving every identity mistake, or describe Shogun as automatically reversing the result for ordinary face-to-face dealings.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the rogue obtain a voidable title?
Lewis dealt directly with the person present, although misled about his identity and creditworthiness. The court treated that as a contract affected by fraud, rather than an absence of contract. The distinction meant title could pass subject to the seller's right to avoid the transaction.
Why did Averay's purchase defeat Lewis's claim?
Averay bought in good faith before the original transaction had been avoided. The rogue's voidable title could therefore support the protected onward sale. The original fraud did not automatically permit recovery of the car from every later purchaser regardless of timing or statutory protection.
Does Shogun make every impersonation contract void?
No. Shogun concerned a written hire-purchase agreement in which the named person's identity was central to construction. Lewis concerns ordinary face-to-face dealing. The transaction's form and objective identity of the contracting party must be analysed before applying the different consequences of void and voidable transactions.