At a distance of time ‘every intendment should be made in favour of what has been done as being lawfully and properly done.’
A compromise was made with, and a discharge from liability granted to, a contributory to a bank in liquidation ‘on the basis and on the condition of the truth, accuracy, and completeness’ of a written state of the contributory’s property and its value made in answer to printed questions. The state was declared to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Twenty years later a reduction of the discharge was brought on the ground that the state was inaccurate, it having been discovered that the contributory had been possessed of property, at that time of doubtful value, which did not appear in the state.
Held (rev the judgment of the Court of Session) that reduction should not be granted (1) because the declaration being only to the best knowledge and belief of the declarant, it was not sufficient to prove inaccuracy, but fraudulent concealment must be established; and (2) because, as it was not a special condition of the compromise that the disclosure of the contributory’s property should be of all his effects in writing, a verbal disclosure of the property in question would have been sufficient, and it was not proved that such verbal disclosure had not been made.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lords Macnaghten, Davey, James of Hereford, and Robertson
Citations:
[1905] UKHL 835
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Contract
Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621181