References: (1837) 1 Keen 729, [1837] EngR 595, (1837) 1 Keen 729, (1837) 48 ER 488
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Langdale
Ratio: The court put forward: ‘the general principle that the court will not execute a contract, the performance of which is unreasonable or will be prejudicial to persons interested in the property, but not parties to the contract’
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Cedar Holdings Ltd v Green CA ([1981] Ch 129)
A property was held in the joint names of a former husband and wife. To obtain a loan for the husband, a legal charge over the property was executed by the husband, but he had another woman execute for the wife, pretending to be her. The chargee . . - Cited – Bankers Trust Company v Namdar and Namdar CA ([1997] EWCA Civ 1015)
The bank sought repayment of its loan and possession of the defendants’ property. The second defendant said that the charge had only her forged signature.
Held: Non-compliance with section 2 of the 1989 Act does not make a bargain illegal, and . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 15 June 2020
Ref: 238940