The Court held a notice to not be a valid demand because of the overstatement of the debt: ‘where a demand is made for a larger amount than that which is really due, such demand does not do away with the necessity of tendering what is actually due, unless there is at the same time refusal to receive less’
(1879) 40 LT 137
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Spreadex Ltd v Dr Vijay Ram Battu CA 11-Jul-2005
The appellant traded in financial indices through the respondent spread betting company. The company took two forms of security, an initial payment by way of security, and a sum covering any current trading positions. The trader made losses, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.228417
