The plaintiffs, having agreed to supply goods to the defendant’s husband on credit if his wife would guarantee payment by him of their price, sent to the husband a form of guarantee, in order that he might obtain his wife’s signature to it, leaving the matter entirely to him. The husband obtained his wife’s signature to the guarantee, without sufficiently explaining to her the nature of the document, which she did not understand when she signed it.
Held: The instrument of suretyship for his obligations was set aside when the wife’s evidence was that she did not know that the document that she signed was a guarantee or of any importance. The case came squarely within the principle explained in Duval where the document the wife signed ‘was very different from what she supposed it to be’
References: [1908] 1 KB 233, 97 LT 860
Judges: Vaughan Williams LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Applied – Kings North Trust Ltd v Bell CA 1986
The wife claimed to have signed a legal charge in favour of the plaintiffs by virtue of her husband’s fraudulent misrepresentation. The charge secured the business borrowings of the husband. She did not get independent advice.
Held: The bank . .
([1986] 1 All ER 423, [1986] 1 WLR 119) - Applied – Avon Finance Co Ltd v Bridger CA 1985
The son arranged finance for his parents to move near to him. He borrowed money to help finance it, secured by an expensive second loan. He deceived his parents into executing the loan. After the son defaulted, the plaintiff sought possession.
([1985] 2 All ER 281, [1985] CLY 1289)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.193355 br>