The Plaintiff had given an oral guarantee to P that the Defendant would pay for certain goods ordered by him from P: if the Defendant did not pay P for the goods, he (the Plaintiff) would do so. The Defendant did not pay the full amount due and the Plaintiff did so in his place. He then sued the Defendant for the amount so paid. The Defendant resisted the claim saying that the Plaintiff could not have been made to pay, because the guarantee, not being in or evidenced in writing, was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
Held: The Defendant was liable notwithstanding this argument. Lord Abinger CB said: ‘the promise was, that, if the Defendant did not pay, the Plaintiff would; there was therefore an agreement, that, if the money was paid for the Defendant, it might be recovered from him.’
Judges:
Lord Abinger CB, Baron Parke
Citations:
(1836) 1 MandW 511
Cited by:
Helpful – Re Chetwynd’s Estate CA 1938
A liability arose on a joint and several promissory note, where it was clear that one of the two parties (C) was the principal debtor and the other (S) was, as between them, in the position of a guarantor. The note did not comply with the 1927 Act. . .
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 6-Mar-2007
The claimant was the original tenant under two 99 year underleases granted in 1967, and assigned them to the defendant who then himself assigned them. The eventual assignee had become insolvent. The landlord recovered the rents from the claimant who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.249879