Site icon swarb.co.uk

Roberts and Co v Marsh: 1915

The defendant’s cheque had not been met. The debt it cleared was void. He issued a substitue cheque.
Held: The substitute cheque was a valid and unconditional order to pay, and therefore valid as a cheque, which the bank was bound to pay on presentation, subject to the prior countermand.

Citations:

[1915] 1 KB 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAspinall’s Club Ltd v Al-Zayat CA 19-Oct-2007
The claimant had sued the defendant for non-payment under a cheque for andpound;2 million. The cheque had been issued to replace earlier cheques given but not met, for sums staked for gambling at the claimant’s casino. The defendant said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.259936

Exit mobile version