ComC The rule in Pigot’s case. Whether alteration to a guarantee by the insertion of the name and address of a service agent was material so as to render the guarantee unenforceable.
Judges:
Cresswell J
Citations:
[1999] 1 All ER (Comm), [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 164, [1999] CLC 973
Citing:
Cited – Pigot’s Case 1614
A written contact may be avoided if somebody makes a material alteration to it after it has been signed and without his consent. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich Ag v Cross-Seas Shipping Ltd and Others CA 1-Feb-2000
An alteration to a deed after it had been executed did not necessarily invalidate it. Old rules to that effect need no longer be considered correct. The test was whether any party was adversely affected or the effect of the deed was changed by the . .
Appeal From – Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich A G v Crossseas Shipping Ltd and Others CA 2000
The claimant creditor bank made changes to the guarantee executed by the guarantee without its approval and after it had been signed and duly executed, by inserting the details of a service agent.
Held: The insertion did not work to alter the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.225402