A defendant sought to deny liability under a document relying on the 1677 Statute. the relevant document had been drawn up by a duly authorised agent of the Defendants. The document was a letter from the Plaintiff and the words ‘Messrs Hoare, Marr and Co, 26,29 Budge Row, London EC’ appeared after the Plaintiff’s address at the head of the letter. The question was whether these words constituted a signature of ‘some person . . thereunto lawfully authorised’ by the Defendants. The plaintiff argued that the the appearance of the Defendant’s name in the letter tendered to the Plaintiff for signature on behalf of the Defendant was sufficiently signed on behalf of the Defendant because the Defendant’s name had been ‘written . . with the defendant’s authority, with the intention of designating the party to be charged, and for the purpose of making a contract which should be binding on the Plaintiff’.
Held: The effect of the words in the statute is that ‘there must be a memorandum of a contract, not merely a memorandum of a proposal’ and ‘I am of opinion that the principle to be derived from the decisions is this. In the first place, there must be a memorandum of a contract, not merely a memorandum of a proposal; and secondly, there must be in the memorandum, somewhere or other, the name of the party to be charged, signed by him or by his authorized agent. Whether the name occurs in the body of the memorandum, or at the beginning, or at the end, if it is intended for a signature there is a memorandum of the agreement within the meaning of the statute.’ .
Cave J
[1892] 1 QB 593
Statute of Frauds 1677 4
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA ChD 7-Apr-2006
The parties were in dispute. The now respondent threatened winding up. The appellant had someone in his company send an email requesting an adjournment and apparently giving a personal guarantee to a certain amount. The application was adjourned, . .
Cited – Elpis Maritime Company Limited v Marti Chartering Company Limited (The Maria D) HL 1991
Brokers (Marti) were to guarantee a charter on the Gencon form, which contained, as one of the additional typed clauses a provision (Clause 24) in the following terms: ‘Demurrage guaranteed and payable directly by charterers to owners. However Marti . .
Cited – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another ComC 21-Jan-2011
The defendants sought to set aside orders allowing the claimants to serve proceedings alleging repudiation of a charterparty in turn allowing a claim against the defendants under a guarantee. The defendant said the guarantee was unenforceable under . .
Applied – Leeman v Stocks 1951
The plaintiff’s was the highest bid for premises at an auction. The auctioneer used a borrowed form for sale by private treaty, though some clauses were inappropriate. A solicitor present edited the document and put in the date for completion. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.241706