In re Hoyle: CA 1893

ALSmith LJ discussed the 1677 Act: ‘The object of the Statute was to prevent fraud and perjury by taking away the right to sue on certain agreements if only established by verbal evidence . . The object of the statute being merely to exclude parol evidence, any writing embodying the terms of the agreement and signed by the person to be charged is sufficient’ and ‘the court is not in quest of the intention of the parties, but only of evidence under the hand of one of the parties to the contract that he has entered into it’ and ‘The question is not what is the intention of the person signing the memorandum but is one of fact, vis is there a note or memorandum of the promise signed by the party to be charged?’.

Judges:

AL Smith LJ

Citations:

[1893] 1 Ch 84

Statutes:

Statute of Frauds 1677 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedElpis Maritime Company Limited v Marti Chartering Company Limited (The Maria D) HL 1991
Brokers (Marti) were to guarantee a charter on the Gencon form, which contained, as one of the additional typed clauses a provision (Clause 24) in the following terms: ‘Demurrage guaranteed and payable directly by charterers to owners. However Marti . .
CitedMehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA ChD 7-Apr-2006
The parties were in dispute. The now respondent threatened winding up. The appellant had someone in his company send an email requesting an adjournment and apparently giving a personal guarantee to a certain amount. The application was adjourned, . .
CitedGolden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another ComC 21-Jan-2011
The defendants sought to set aside orders allowing the claimants to serve proceedings alleging repudiation of a charterparty in turn allowing a claim against the defendants under a guarantee. The defendant said the guarantee was unenforceable under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.241713