The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay andpound;10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed andpound;5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The defendants pleaded that they had not borrowed any money from A. The underlying facts, according to the defendants, were that the defendants owed money to B and C, who were induced by A into agreeing that the defendants should issue the bond to A in lieu of payment to themselves. B and C then discovered that they were the victim of a scam and requested the defendants not to pay the bond. In short, the parties to the bond, A and the defendants, both knew when it was issued that the recital about A having lent money to the defendants was false.
Held: The defendants were estopped from denying the truth of the facts stated.
Martin B said: ‘The meaning of estoppel is this – that the parties agreed, for the purpose of a particular transaction, to state certain facts as true; and that, so far as regards that transaction, there shall be no question about them.’
The position would be different if the statement had been made for the purpose of concealing an illegal contract, but that was not the case. Nor was it alleged that A had practised a fraud on the defendants. He was alleged to have deceived B and C, when they directed the defendants to give the bond to A, but that did not affect the validity of the bond.
Judges:
Baron Martin
Citations:
[1852] EngR 658, (1853) 7 Exch 780, (1852) 155 ER 1165
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners 2-Jun-1852
The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay andpound;10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed andpound;5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The . .
Cited by:
See Also – Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners 12-Jun-1852
. .
See Also – Horton v The Westminster Improvement Commissioners 2-Jun-1852
The plaintiff was assignee of the defendants’ bond to A to pay andpound;10,000. It recited that the defendants had borrowed andpound;5,000 from A for the purposes of carrying out works under the Westminster Improvement Acts 1845 and 1847. The . .
Cited – Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello PC 9-Jul-2013
(Gibraltar) Parties to a contract for the sale of land including the appellant company declared a purchase price which both knew to be false. Faced with insolvency proceedings, the appellant sought to challenge a claim for the full amount.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Estoppel
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.295781
