Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 (HL)

Facts

  • A rogue, Alfred Blenkarn, fraudulently ordered handkerchiefs from Cundy, the claimant, using the name and address of the reputable firm "Blenkiron & Co."
  • Blenkarn sent his orders by post, listing his address as 37 Wood Street, Cheapside, instead of Blenkiron & Co.'s address at 123 Wood Street.
  • Cundy, believing he was transacting with Blenkiron & Co., sent the goods to the address provided by Blenkarn.
  • Blenkarn sold the handkerchiefs to Lindsay, the defendant, who purchased them in good faith.
  • Cundy, not having been paid, sought to recover the goods from Lindsay, arguing that the contract with Blenkarn was void due to a mistake regarding the other party's identity.

Issues

  1. Whether a contract formed through correspondence is void when one party is mistaken as to the identity of the other, due to the fraudulent actions of a third party.
  2. Whether the absence of a true consensus ad idem (meeting of the minds) prevented a valid contract from being formed between Cundy and Blenkarn.
  3. Whether Lindsay, having purchased the goods in good faith, obtained valid title.
  4. Whether Cundy could recover the goods from Lindsay under the tort of conversion.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that the contract between Cundy and Blenkarn was void for unilateral mistake as to identity.
  • Lord Cairns LC emphasized that Cundy intended to contract solely with Blenkiron & Co., not Blenkarn; thus, there was no agreement between Cundy and the rogue.
  • The absence of consensus ad idem meant no valid contract was formed and, consequently, no title passed from Cundy to Blenkarn.
  • Blenkarn, lacking title, could not transfer good title to Lindsay, making Lindsay liable for conversion despite acting in good faith.

Legal Principles

  • A unilateral mistake as to identity, where fundamental and induced by fraud, renders a contract void, not merely voidable.
  • Consensus ad idem (a meeting of the minds) is an essential element for the formation of a valid contract; absence of this negates contractual agreement.
  • In sales through correspondence, a mistaken identity may void the contract if the seller intends to contract only with a specific party.
  • Where a contract is void, no legal title passes, preventing subsequent bona fide purchasers from acquiring valid ownership.
  • The tort of conversion protects the true owner's rights where goods have been transferred without proper title.
  • The distinction between written contracts (as in Cundy v Lindsay) and face-to-face dealings (as in Phillips v Brooks) affects whether a contract is considered void or voidable.
  • Modern application recognizes the difficulty in distinguishing mistakes as to identity (void) from mistakes as to attributes (voidable) and limits the doctrine’s scope accordingly.

Conclusion

Cundy v Lindsay confirms that a contract is void for fundamental unilateral mistake as to identity in written transactions, such that a rogue cannot pass title even to good faith purchasers, underscoring the critical role of consensus ad idem in contract formation and title transfer.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal