A printed form of bill of sale set out that in consideration of andpound;250 being ‘now paid by the grantees to’ and then identifying a third person ‘at the request of the grantor’ chattels were assigned by way of security for the repayment of the loan with interest at andpound;55 per cent per annum. The printed form originally stated the interest to be at ‘one shilling in the pound per month’ with the printed words being struck out. The words ‘per annum’ were omitted in what was said to be a true copy of a the bill when lodged in relation to the rate of interest, and no receipt was given within the bill.
Held: The omission of the words ‘per annum’ did prevent the filed version being a true copy.
However, not all omissions would prevent the copy being a true copy. The expression ‘true copy’ in the bills of sale legislation indicates that the copy need not be an exact one and immaterial differences between the original and the copy which do not mislead the reader as to the contents can be ignored: ‘mere mis-spellings, mere failures to fill up blanks which can be filled up from other parts of the deed – matters which do not in any way affect the purpose for which the true copy is required – will not prevent the document registered from being a ‘true copy’ within the meaning of the Act.’
The former notion that a receipt contained in a deed gave rise to an estoppel whereas one not in a deed did not had long been discarded. It derived from times when a greater distinction was made between practice in courts of equity and of common law. The fact of a receipt being in a deed had not since days prior to the 1873 Act, given rise to no greater presumption. A party to a deed was not estopped from setting up the truth.
Judges:
Scrutton LJ, Lush J
Citations:
[1920] 2 KB 80, (1920) LJKB 533, (1920) 122 LT 758, (1920) 38 TLR 257, (1920) 64 Sol Jo 68, [1920] BandCR 7
Statutes:
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Carey v HSBC Bank plc, Yunis v Barclays Bank plc and similar QBD 23-Dec-2009
(Manchester Mercantile Court) The court considered the effects in detail where a bank was unable to comply with a request under section 78 of the 1974 Act to provide a copy of the agreement signed by the client.
Held: The court set out to give . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Equity
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.384473
