"Cundy v Lindsay (1877\u201378) LR 3 App Cas 459 is an English contract law case on the subject of mistake, introducing the concept that contracts could be automatically void for , where it is of crucial importance. Some lawyers argue that such a rule is at odds with subsequent cases of mistake as to identity, such as Phillips v Brooks, where parties contracting face to face are merely voidable for fraud, protecting a third party buyer. However, the ultimate question is whether the identity of the other contracting party was crucial to the contract. The problem for the courts was essentially which of the two innocent parties should bear the loss of the goods."@en . . . . . . "LR 3 App Cas 459; [1874-80] All ER Rep 1149"@en . . . . "Cundy v Lindsay"@en . "6588"^^ . . . . . . . "Mistake as to identity, void"@en . . . . . "23252035"^^ . . . . . . . "1878-03-04"^^ . . . . . "Cundy v Lindsay"@en . . . . . . . "Cundy v Lindsay (1877\u201378) LR 3 App Cas 459 is an English contract law case on the subject of mistake, introducing the concept that contracts could be automatically void for , where it is of crucial importance. Some lawyers argue that such a rule is at odds with subsequent cases of mistake as to identity, such as Phillips v Brooks, where parties contracting face to face are merely voidable for fraud, protecting a third party buyer. However, the ultimate question is whether the identity of the other contracting party was crucial to the contract. The problem for the courts was essentially which of the two innocent parties should bear the loss of the goods."@en . . . . . . . . . . . . "1124030255"^^ . "Did a contract for the sale of linen handkerchiefs exist when one party had mistaken the identity of the other?"@en . .