Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Walker of Guestingthorpe concluded that, as the contract was the written document, the identity of the tenant must be ascertained by constructing that document... Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Lord Millet has adopted a different approach. They point out the illogicality of applying a special approach to face-to-face relationships… They propose an elegant solution to this illogicality. When two individuals deal with each other, whatever the medium, and agree on the terms of a contract, then a contract will be concluded between them, despite the fact that one has deceived the other into believing that he has the identity of a third party. In such a situation the contract will be voidable but not void... Despite being strongly attached to this solution, I find myself unable to adopt it. For Lord Philips of Maltravers in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62; [2004] 1 AC 919 at [167]-[170]Explain why you agree or disagree with the approach of Lord Nicholls and Millet. It is evident from case law that the law relating to error has been inconsistent due to irregular decisions made in cases with similar facts. In situations where a third party and his rights are at stake it is necessary to consider whether the contract between A and B is void or voidable. Therefore, it is not surprising that Lord Nicholls and Lord Millet took issue with the decision made by the majority in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson and found the law of contract to be unsatisfactory and unprincipled. However, before discussing this in depth, it is important to understand the fundamental law of error. As defined by Pendleton in Vickey [1998] error can be a "misunderstanding concerning a fact, causing one or more parties...... middle of paper......bsolete, and the Ingram and Hector decisions v Lyon will be overturned by doing so. The law is constantly changing as time passes and it seems that the time has come to change this particular law. The majority's efforts to take a formalist approach and affirm the accuracy of Cundy do not seem to be able to resist cracks in decisions made have shown. Lord Nicholls and Millet's approach is simply more realistic and will allow judges to truly look at the facts of cases rather than doing their best to keep in line with the Cundy doctrine The minority approach is the best solution at all levels as it means that the law can be fairer, especially when considering third parties. This area of ​​law has been complicated for too long, when in reality the confusion was not necessary. The decision in Shogun was indeed a missed opportunity to clarify the law (Hare).