Hamilton v Watson: 1845

Although a would-be surety is, in general, expected to acquaint himself with the risk he is undertaking, the creditor is under an obligation to disclose to the intending surety ‘anything which might not naturally be expected to take place between the parties who are concerned in the transaction, that is, whether there be a contract between the debtor and the creditor, to the effect that his position shall be different from that which the surety might naturally expect.’
Lord Campbell
(1845) 12 Cl and F 109
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedLondon General Omnibus Co Ltd v Holloway 1912
Lee was employed by the bus company in a position which involved receiving money on their behalf. The bus company required him to obtain a fidelity bond from a third party. The bond was given by Holloway, a relative of Lee, without either the bus . .
CitedRoyal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2021; Ref: scu.224825