An exception to the Law on Misrepresentation – that contracts can be invalidated in the event of missteps, but that the right of withdrawal may be excluded, among other things, by third-party rights – occurs when fraudulent misrepresentation induces a person to enter into an agreement through a written document remotely (not when a transaction is face to face). In Shogun Finance Ltd v. Hudson, a scammer received Mr. Patel`s credit data and purchased a Mitsubishi Shogun on a lease-purchase agreement at a car dealership. Shogun Finance was faxed by Mr. Patel`s details and agreed to finance the purchase of the car so that the scammer could leave. Then Mrs. Hudson bought the car from the crook. The thug is missing. Then Shogun found finance, which had never been paid predictably, and filed a complaint to pick up the car.
A narrow majority of the House of Lords found that the contract between the financial company and the crook had been cancelled to protect the security of commercial transactions by a signed document (the same consequence, as if there had never been an offer reflected by acceptance). You have always intended to enter into a contract with Mr. Patel. And because no one can pass on property they don`t have (nemo dat quod non habet), Ms. Hudson never acquired the legitimate title of the scammer`s car and had to return the car.  The minority felt that this situation should be consistent with the right of misrepresentation and that the right of the financial corporation to terminate the contract would be excluded by interfering with Ms. Hudson`s rights as a third-party purchaser in good faith, as in all of Europe, in the United States, and by previous decisions of the Court of Appeal.  However, as a result of the majority decision, this particular category of ”identity errors” remains a general exception to the English Law on Misrepresentation.
 The Royal Courts, merged by Magna Carta 1215 in London, have accepted claims for ”transgression of the case” (now more of a misdemeanor). A jury was convened, and there was no need for trial, but there was a need to argue for a certain breach of the royal peace. Gradually, the courts admitted claims for which there had been no real difficulties, no unlawful act of ”armed violence” (vi and armis), but it was still necessary to enter it in the plea. Simon de Rattlesdene thus claimed in 1317 that he had been sold a wine contaminated with salt water and that, quite fictitiously, it had to be done ”by force and weapons, namely with swords, arrows and arrows.”  The Court of Chancery and King`s Bench slowly began to admit the claims without the fictitious charge of violence and weapons dating back to 1350. A complaint for the mere breaking of an alliance (a solemn promise) required the presentation of formal proof of the agreement with a seal. However, in the case of The Humber Ferryman, a lawsuit was filed without any hard evidence against a smuggler who threw overboard a horse he was to carry on the Humber River.  Despite this liberalization, a threshold of 40 shillings had been created in the 1200s for the value of litigation.