Seaton v Heath: CA 1899

A suretyship contract is not a contract uberrimae fidei. Romer LJ said: ‘The risk undertaken is generally known to the surety and the circumstances generally point to the view that as between the creditor and surety it was contemplated and intended that the surety should take upon himself to ascertain exactly what risk he was taking upon himself.’

Judges:

Romer LJ

Citations:

[1899] 1 QB 782

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoyal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.224824