An alteration to a deed after it had been executed did not necessarily invalidate it. Old rules to that effect need no longer be considered correct. The test was whether any party was adversely affected or the effect of the deed was changed by the alteration. In this case the address of a party to a guarantee had been altered. The alteration was not seen to be significant enough to avoid the deed. Appeal dismissed.
Citations:
Times 01-Feb-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1135, [2000] 3 All ER 274, [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 76, [2000] LLoyd’s Rep Bank 108, [2000] CLC 533
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85646
