The claimant creditor bank made changes to the guarantee executed by the guarantee without its approval and after it had been signed and duly executed, by inserting the details of a service agent.
Held: The insertion did not work to alter the guarantor’s liability, and had not been prejudicial to its legal rights and obligations and accordingly was not material. The guarantee remained enforceable. An alteration to the contract after signature did not invalidate it unless it was material in the sense of being ‘potentially prejudicial to the legal rights or obligations of the affected party’.
 1 WLR 1135
England and Wales
Appeal From – Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich A G v Crossseas Shipping Ltd and Others ComC 19-Mar-1999
ComC The rule in Pigot’s case. Whether alteration to a guarantee by the insertion of the name and address of a service agent was material so as to render the guarantee unenforceable. . .
Cited – Pigot’s Case 1614
A written contact may be avoided if somebody makes a material alteration to it after it has been signed and without his consent. . .
Cited – Mercury Tax Group Ltd and Another, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs and Others Admn 13-Nov-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the lawfulness of search warrants given to the Commissioners and executed at their various offices. The Revenue had suspect the dishonest implementation of a tax avoidance scheme. The claimants said that there . .
Cited – Pickenham Romford Ltd v Deville ChD 31-Jul-2013
The claimant company’s administrators sought an order to have vacated unilateral notices entered against land titles registered to the claimant. The court now gave its reasons for making the order as requested by way of summary relief. The notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.415070