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.’
Romer LJ
[1899] 1 QB 782
Cited by:

  • Cited – Royal 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 . .
    Times 17-Oct-01, [2001] UKHL 44, [2001] 3 WLR 1021, [2002] 2 AC 773, [2002] HLR 4, [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 343, [2001] NPC 147, [2001] Fam Law 880, [2001] 43 EGCS 184, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 1061, [2001] 4 All ER 449, [2001] 2 FLR 1364, [2002] 1 P and CR DG14, [2001] 3 FCR 481

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 December 2020; Ref: scu.224824