The House held that a loan of andpound;45,000 made by a building owner to a building contractor did not constitute an agreement ‘for any alteration in or to’ the building contract which the company had guaranteed. The question was whether it was ‘within the general purview of the original guarantee’. Lord Atkin also said: ‘My Lords, both actions were brought on the money bond.’ – That is the first and second actions. – ‘It is well established that in such an action the plaintiff has to establish damages occasioned by the breach or breaches of the conditions, and, if he succeeds, he recovers judgment on the whole amount of the bond, but can only issue execution for the amount of the damages proved.’
Judges:
Lord Atkin
Citations:
[1937] AC 1
Cited by:
Cited – Triodos Bank Nv v Dobbs (No 2) CA 24-May-2005
The bank sought payment under a guarantee given by the appellant. The appellant said that the original loan agreement had been varied so as to release him. The loan had been taken out to support a business venture. After the guarantee was signed a . .
See Also – Trade Indemnity Co Ltd v Workington Harbour and Dock Board (No 2) HL 1938
The plaintiffs’ action was derived from a bond given by the defendants guaranteeing a contractor’s performance in building a dock for the plaintiffs. The bond provided that a certificate which complied with certain criteria would prove the amount . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Contract
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.225451