Our phone lines are closed Monday 27th May. You can still place your order online as usual.

King’s Norton Metal Co v Edridge

315 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

07/03/18 Cases Reference this

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Parallelewelten.net.

If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.

King’s Norton Metal Co v Edridge Merrett & Co (1897) 14 TLR 98

Contract – Fraud – Misrepresentation


A fraudster ordered goods from a metal manufacturer. He told the manufacturer that he was a well known business man and provided him with false details which matched the description of a wealthy business man, leading the manufacturer to believe he had multiple factories and agents. The fraudster set up an account with the manufacturer and paid nothing for the goods upfront. The fraudster then sold the goods to Edridge Merritt.


Whether there was a contract between the fraudster and Edridge Merritt.


Judgment was awarded to Edridge Merritt. The court held that the fraudster had made a contract with Edridge Merritt in his own capacity and identity. He had not fraudulently taken on another identity when selling the goods to Edridge. Although the contract was voidable, possessory title was held to pass from a fraudster to an innocent person, because they were led to believe the purchase they were making was bona fide. The case of Cundy v Lindsay (1877) App Cas 459 was distinguished as the court held that Cundy had contracted with the fraudster under the guild of a separate identity. A good title was said to pass from the fraudster to the innocent party, deeming them the new rightful owner. Cundy v Lindsay is now held to be the correct approach to fraud and sale of goods to an innocent third party, in that there is no possessory title to be passed on to the innocent third party. However, the court held that King’s Norton was unable to recover the goods or their value from Edridge Merritt.

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

Current Offers