Sale of goods

A rogue went to buy a Mitsubishi Shogun on hire purchase. The rogue told Shogun Finance Ltd that his name was Mr Patel and produced Mr Patel’s driving licence. The finance company did a credit check on Mr Patel, finding no problems, and the rogue drove away. Then, the rogue sold the car to Mr Norman Hudson. Under s.27 Hire Purchase Act 1964 a non-trade buyer of a car who buys in good faith from a hirer under a hire purchase agreement becomes the owner, so Mr Hudson would have been the owner if the hire purchase agreement were valid. Shogun Finance argued that it was not on the basis that there was a mistake as to identity. They therefore claimed against Mr Hudson for conversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogun_Finance_Ltd_v_Hudson


From the case above, it is clear that Mr Hudson did not know that he was purchasing a car that did not belong to the seller. the problem however, should also be the responsibility of the finance company, since they had originally not found any problems. Had they done a more thorough check, then maybe they would have been able to avoid this problem.
the rogue was to have been able to account for his wrongful actions.
According to the judgement, there was no contract of hire purchase between Shogun Finance and the rogue, so that the car was not Mr Hudson's.