Do you agree with Lord Nicholls' and Lord Millett's dissenting Essay

Do you agree with Lord Nicholls and Lord Milletts differ judgments in Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson 2003 UKHL 62 - Essay ExampleLords Hobhouse, Philips and Walker took the position that the sign bundle was void altogether so that the innocent third caller lost the protection provided for by contribution 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964.1 The three Lords, relying on Section 29(4) of the Hire Purchase Act, 19642 held that since the initial contract provided for the identities of the parties to the sale and the person to whom the goods had been delivered was not a party to the contract, that contract was void.Lords Millert and Nichols, dissent, took an entirely different address and asserted that the plaintiff delivered the goods to the person they mistakenly took to be a party to the contract, but was nevertheless the party with whom they intended to pass title to.3 Therefore the initial contract was merely voidable. The overall tone of the dissenting decision reflects a willingnes s to overcome doctrines of contract law in such a way as to avoid leaving two essentially duped and innocent victims of a fraudster pitted against one another with the allow for that the most disadvantaged victim is left with no claim. Although the arguments submitted by the dissenting justices raise questions of fairness and equity, the bulk decision illustrates that overcoming that unfairness is not supported by tenets of contract law.The rulings of the majority of the Lords appear to take a severe position against the consumer who trades in second-hand goods, it makes practical sense, since the risks associated with these kinds of purchases can be avoided by purchasing goods from authorised dealers. This get along is not only consistent with principles of contract law, it is also consistent with common sense. Any person transaction in used or second-hand goods accepts certain risks, one of which is the risk of gaining bad title or no title at all. The position taken by the two dissenting Lords are too rivet on consequences for the