Lloyds Bank Limited v Bundy

Last updated

Lloyds Bank Ltd. v Bundy
Lloyds Bank 39 Threadneedle Street address.JPG
Old address plaque for Lloyds Bank
Court English Court of Appeal
Full case nameLloyds Bank Limited and Herbert James Bundy
DecidedJuly 30, 1974
Citations[1974] EWCA Civ 8, [1975] QB 326, [1974] 3 All ER 757
Case opinions
Lord Denning MR, Sachs LJ, Cairns LJ
Keywords
Undue influence in English law

Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy is a decision of the English Court of Appeal in English contract law, dealing with undue influence. One of the three judges hearing the case, Lord Denning MR advanced the argument that under English law, all impairments of autonomy could be collected under a single principle of "inequality of bargaining power".

Contents

Facts

Herbert James Bundy was a farmer. His son, Michael, owned a business that was in financial trouble. Bundy had already guaranteed his son's business with a £7,500 charge over his only asset, his farmhouse, to Lloyds Bank. Michael's company got into further financial difficulty. Bundy then increased his exposure to £11,000 after the assistant manager of Lloyds failed to notify him of the company's true financial condition. Lloyds foreclosed on the house when the money was not paid. In the subsequent court proceedings, Bundy had a heart attack in the witness box. The question was whether the contract leading to the repossession of the house was voidable for some iniquitous pressure. [1] [2]

Judgment

The case was heard by a three-judge panel of the English Court of Appeal: Lord Denning, Lord Justice Sachs, and Lord Justice Cairns. The Court unanimously agreed to set aside the trial judgment and give judgment in favour of Bundy, but for differing reasons. Sachs gave the majority decision, Cairns concurring. Denning gave separate reasons reaching the same conclusion. (As is the custom in English court cases, the judgments are given in order of seniority, not majority.)

Lord Denning

Denning held that the contract was voidable owing to the unequal bargaining position in which Bundy had found himself vis-à-vis the bank. He held that undue influence was a category of a wider class where the balance of power between the parties was such as to merit the interference of the court. It was apparent that Bundy had entered the contract without independent advice. Denning concluded it was very unfair and pressures were brought to bear by the bank. [1]

Denning began by stating that the general rule is that a person who signs a contract must fulfill its terms. He then listed five exceptions to that general rule: (1) duress of goods; (2) unconscionable transaction; (3) undue influence; (4) undue pressure; (5) salvage agreements. [1]

After summarising each of these in turn, he stated that there is a common thread running through all of them:

Gathering all together, I would suggest that through all these instances there runs a single thread. They rest on "inequality of bargaining power." By virtue of it, the English law gives relief to one who, without independent advice, enters into a contract upon terms which are very unfair or transfers property for a consideration which is grossly inadequate, when his bargaining power is grievously impaired by reason of his own needs or desires, or by his own ignorance or infirmity, coupled with undue influences or pressures brought to bear on him by or for the benefit of the other. [1]

Denning then applied those principles to the facts of the case: (1) The consideration moving from the bank was grossly inadequate; (2) The relationship between the bank and the father was one of trust and confidence; (3) The relationship between the father and the son was one where the father's natural affection had much influence on him; (4) There was a conflict of interest between the bank and the father. Yet the bank did not realise it. Nor did it suggest that the father should get independent advice. [1]

Denning concluded that on those facts, the case had been made out for inequality of bargaining power, and would therefore allow the appeal. [1]

Lord Justice Sachs

Sachs held that a presumption of undue influence had not been rebutted, because Bundy was not independently advised. He had placed himself in the hands of the bank. He noted the bank's concession that "in the normal course of transactions by which a customer guarantees a third party's obligations, the relationship does not arise". [1]

Sachs concluded that when the existence of a special relationship has been established, then a fiduciary duty arises. Here, the bank did not advise Bundy to get independent legal advice. Instead, the bank loans officer gave his own views on the son's business and advised Bundy to give the guarantee. That was a manifest breach of the duty to take fiduciary care: "then any possible use of the relevant influence is, irrespective of the intentions of the person possessing it, regarded in relation to the transaction under consideration as an abuse – unless and until the duty of fiduciary care has been shown to be fulfilled or the transaction is shown to be truly for the benefit of the person influenced ». [1]

Sachs commented that the counsel for the bank "urged in somewhat doom-laden terms" that banking practice would be seriously affected if the appeal were allowed, but Sachs dismissed that argument. He agreed the appeal should be allowed. [1]

Sachs declined to express an opinion on Denning's dicta. [1]

Lord Justice Cairns

Cairns concurred in allowing the appeal, for the reasons given by Sachs. [1]

See also

Duress

Undue influence

Unconscionability

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Estoppel in English law</span>

Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unconscionability</span> Doctrine in contract law

Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

<i>Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.</i>

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445, was a court opinion, written by Judge J. Skelly Wright, that had a definitive discussion of unconscionability as a defense to enforcement of contracts in American contract law. As a staple of first-year law school contract law courses, it has been briefed extensively.

Interpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement. This approach marks a break with previous a more rigid modes of interpretation before the 1970s, where courts paid closer attention to the formal expression of the parties' intentions and took more of a literal view of what they had said.

Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of voluntary obligations unfairly exploiting the unequal power of the consenting parties. "Inequality of bargaining power" is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.

Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v International Transport Workers' Federation [1982] 2 All ER 67 is an English contract law case relating to duress.

Barton v Armstrong is a Privy Council decision heard on appeal from the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, relating to duress and pertinent to case law under Australian and English contract law.

<i>Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)</i>

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 is a leading case relevant for English land law and English contract law on the circumstances under which actual and presumed undue influence can be argued to vitiate consent to a contract.

Williams v Bayley (1866) LR 1 HL 200 is an English contract law case relating to undue influence.

Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. v Aboody [1992] 4 All ER 955 is an English contract law case relating to undue influence.

<i>Barclays Bank plc v OBrien</i>

Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien[1993] UKHL 6 is an English contract law case relating to undue influence. It set out the basic categories of undue influence as,

<i>Cresswell v Potter</i>

Cresswell v Potter [1978] 1 WLR 255 is an English contract law case relating to exploitation of weakness allowing escape from a contract.

<i>Tate v Williamson</i>

Tate v Williamson (1886) LR 2 Ch App 55 is an English contract law case relating to undue influence.

<i>Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd. v Total Oil (GB) Ltd.</i>

Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd. v Total Oil (GB) Ltd.[1984] EWCA Civ 2 is an English contract law case relating to undue influence.

<i>R v Attorney General for England and Wales</i>

"R" v Attorney General for England and Wales [2003] UKPC 22 is a New Zealand contract law case, heard by the Privy Council acting as the final court of appeal of New Zealand and not as part of the judiciary of the UK, relating to duress and undue influence.

<i>Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio, is a seminal case in Australian contract law and equity, in which the High Court held that unconscionable dealing due to a lack of knowledge or education and the consequent imbalance in bargaining power could lead to a transaction being set aside.

Undue influence in English law is a field of contract law and property law whereby a transaction may be set aside if it was procured by the influence exerted by one person on another, such that the transaction cannot "fairly be treated the expression of [that person's] free will".

Pakistan International Airlines Corp v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40 is an English contract law case, concerning economic duress.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy, [1974] EWCA 8.
  2. ↑ McKendrick, Ewan (2007). Contract Law (7th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 367. ISBN   978-0-230-01883-9. The asset was the farmhouse at Yew Tree Farm, Broadchalke, Wiltshire.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.