| Pigot's Case | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | Winchcombe v Pigot |
| Decided | 1614, Trinity Term |
| Citation(s) | (1614) 11 CoRep 26b [1558-1774] All ER Rep 50 77 ER 1177 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Sir Edward Coke |
| Keywords | |
| non est factum | |
Pigot's Case (1614) [1] 11 CoRep 26b, [1558-1774] All ER Rep 50, 77 ER 1177 [2] is a 17th-century decision of the English courts. [3] It is often simply referred to by reference to the rule in Pigot's Case. [4] The rule has been described as a "ghost of the past". [5]
Henry Pigot was indebted to Benedict Winchcombe, and on 2 March 1611 they executed a bond by way of deed relating to the indebtedness. Subsequently, in 1614, Winchcombe was appointed as High Sheriff of Oxfordshire. At this point, some well-meaning but unknown person altered the deed to record this fact by inserting the words "Vicecomiti Comitatus Oxon" (Sheriff of the County of Oxford) immediately after the words Benedict Winchcombe, Esq and before the specification of the amount due. No other changes were made to the deed. [6]
In 1614 Winchcombe brought an action against Pigot on the deed. Pigot, relying on existing case law, entered a plea of " non est factum " (it is not my deed), essentially arguing that because the deed had been altered, it was not the deed that he had originally entered into three years previously. [6]
The case came before the eminent 17th-century English jurist, Lord Coke.
The jury had found as a fact that the amendments (a) were made by a stranger, and (b) that they did so without the permission of Winchcombe. The Court further held that the amendment was not a material one. [6]
Coke held:
when any deed is altered in a point material, by the plaintiff himself, or by any stranger, without the privity of the obligee, be it by interlineation, addition, rasing, or by drawing of a pen through a line, or through the midst of any material word, that the deed thereby becomes void.
Much of Coke's judgment was pure obiter dictum . Having found that the amendments were not material and were made by a stranger, in the way in which Coke commonly did, he still dedicated the larger part of his judgment to consider the legal implications of material alterations by strangers and alterations by parties to the agreement. [7] However, those obiter comments served to formulate the common law jurisprudence on the subject until today.
The decision has been summarised to the effect that: [6]
The rule itself has now been modified by subsequent cases (some of which are summarised below). The most recent edition of Chitty on Contracts describes the rule as: [8]
If a promisee, without the consent of the promisor, deliberately makes a material alteration in a specialty or other instrument containing words of contract, this will discharge the promisor from all liability thereon, even though the original words of the instrument are still legible.
Although the strict consequences of a party to the deed making a non-material alteration to the document appear harsh today, the case actually softened the effect of a much harsher line of earlier authorities. In raising his plea, Pigot was relying upon decisions such as Elliott v Holder (1567) 3 Dyer 261b, 73 ER 580 where it had been held that any alteration of a deed made it "utterly void":
For the deed is entire, and when after the delivery it is altered in any point, otherwise than it was at the time of the delivery, it has become void in its entirety and is not his deed in every part as he delivered it. [9]
In 1791 the scope of the rule in Pigot's Case was extended from deeds to all contracts and other legal instruments by the decision in Master v Millar (1791) 14 TR 320.
The rule remains good law in most common law jurisdictions, and has been cited with approval many times, including by the Privy Council in Goss v Chilcott [1996] UKPC 17.
Other recent citations of the rule include: [10]
The rule has been repealed by statute in New South Wales. [13]
Pigot's Case.
Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.
Consideration is an English common law concept within the law of contract, and is a necessity for simple contracts. The concept of consideration has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions, including the US.
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.
A third-party beneficiary, in the law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to sue on a contract, despite not having originally been an active party to the contract. This right, known as a ius quaesitum tertio, arises when the third party is the intended beneficiary of the contract, as opposed to a mere incidental beneficiary. It vests when the third party relies on or assents to the relationship, and gives the third party the right to sue either the promisor or the promisee of the contract, depending on the circumstances under which the relationship was created.
Pinnel's Case [1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a, also known as Penny v Cole, is an important case in English contract law, on the doctrine of part performance. In it, Sir Edward Coke opined that a part payment of a debt could not extinguish the obligation to pay the whole.
Restraints of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. It is a precursor of modern competition law. In an old leading case of Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) Lord Smith LC said,
it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion.
The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. It extends to nearly all forms of contract and one of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability. The terms extend to both actual contract terms and notices that are seen to constitute a contractual obligation.
Tweddle v Atkinson[1861] EWHC J57 (QB), (1861) 1 B&S 393 is an English contract law case concerning the principle of privity of contract and consideration. Its panel of appeal judges reinforced that the doctrine of privity meant that only those who are party to an agreement may sue or be sued on it and established the principle that "consideration must flow from the promisee".
Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts. The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions.
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.
A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more mutually agreeing parties. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission. A binding agreement between actors in international law is known as a treaty.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 prescribes the law relating to contracts in India and is the key act regulating Indian contract law. The Act is based on the principles of English Common Law. It is applicable to all the states of India. It determines the circumstances in which promises made by the parties to a contract shall be legally binding. Under Section 2(h), the Indian Contract Act defines a contract as an agreement enforceable by Law.
The Law of Property Act 1989 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament, which laid down a number of significant revisions to English property law.
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.
The Contracts Act 1999 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that significantly reformed the common law doctrine of privity and "thereby [removed] one of the most universally disliked and criticised blots on the legal landscape". The second rule of the doctrine of privity, that a third party could not enforce a contract for which he had not provided consideration, had been widely criticised by lawyers, academics and members of the judiciary. Proposals for reform via an act of Parliament were first made in 1937 by the Law Revision Committee in their Sixth Interim Report. No further action was taken by the government until the 1990s, when the Law Commission proposed a new draft bill in 1991, and presented their final report in 1996. The bill was introduced to the House of Lords in December 1998, and moved to the House of Commons on 14 June 1999. It received royal assent on 11 November 1999, coming into force immediately as the Contracts Act 1999.
Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corp [1986] Ch 246 is a UK company law case, concerning the enforceability of obligations against a company. The case was one of the last significant cases on ultra vires under English company law before the provisions abrogating that doctrine in the Companies Act 1985 became effective.
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8 is an English contract law case, concerning the choice between an award of damages for the cost of curing a defect in a building contract or for awarding damages for loss of "amenity".
Penalties in English law are contractual terms which are not enforceable in the courts because of their penal character. Since at least 1720 it has been accepted as a matter of English contract law that if a provision in a contract constitutes a penalty, then that provision is unenforceable by the parties. However, the test for what constitutes a penalty has evolved over time. The Supreme Court most recently restated the law in relation to contractual penalties in the co-joined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
Goss v Chilcott[1996] UKPC 17 is a decision of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand relating to the law of restitution, and in particular the requirements of total failure of consideration in relation to loans where some repayments had been made, and the defence of change of position.