 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Contracts/Non est factum: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''Non est factum''' – [[Latin]] for "it is not [my] deed" – is a doctrine in [[contract law]] that allows a signing party to escape performance of the agreement. A claim of ''non est factum'' means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning, but was not done so negligently. A successful plea would make the contract voidable. | '''Non est factum''' – [[Latin]] for "it is not [my] deed" – is a doctrine in [[contract law]] that allows a signing party to escape performance of the agreement. A claim of ''non est factum'' means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning, but was not done so negligently. A successful plea would make the contract voidable. | ||
Non est factum is difficult to claim as it does not allow for negligence on the part of the signatory. i.e. failure to read a contract before signing it will not allow for non est factum. In a successful case the fundamental basis of the signed contract must be completely different from what was intended. In Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse [1990] a father acted as a guarantor to his sons debt when purchasing a farm. The father was illeterate and signed to document under the belief that he was acting as the guarantor for the farm only, when the contract was actually for all the debt accumulated by the son. As he was illeterate, this was a mistake as to the document signed and the father was successful in claiming non est factum. | Non est factum is difficult to claim as it does not allow for negligence on the part of the signatory. i.e. failure to read a contract before signing it will not allow for non est factum. In a successful case the fundamental basis of the signed contract must be completely different from what was intended. In ''Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse [1990]'''''Bold text''' a father acted as a guarantor to his sons debt when purchasing a farm. The father was illeterate and signed to document under the belief that he was acting as the guarantor for the farm only, when the contract was actually for all the debt accumulated by the son. As he was illeterate, this was a mistake as to the document signed and the father was successful in claiming non est factum. | ||
[[Category:Contract law]] | [[Category:Contract law]] | ||
Revision as of 10:40, April 29, 2007
Template:Unreferenced Template:ContractLaw Non est factum – Latin for "it is not [my] deed" – is a doctrine in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of the agreement. A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning, but was not done so negligently. A successful plea would make the contract voidable.
Non est factum is difficult to claim as it does not allow for negligence on the part of the signatory. i.e. failure to read a contract before signing it will not allow for non est factum. In a successful case the fundamental basis of the signed contract must be completely different from what was intended. In Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse [1990]Bold text a father acted as a guarantor to his sons debt when purchasing a farm. The father was illeterate and signed to document under the belief that he was acting as the guarantor for the farm only, when the contract was actually for all the debt accumulated by the son. As he was illeterate, this was a mistake as to the document signed and the father was successful in claiming non est factum.
