Non est factum

Last updated

Non est factum (Latin for "it is not [my] deed") is a defence in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of an agreement "which is fundamentally different from what he or she intended to execute or sign". [1] A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning. A successful plea would make the contract void ab initio . [2]

According to Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1971] AC 1004, [3] applied in Petelin v Cullen [1975], [2] the strict requirements necessary for a successful plea are generally that:

  1. The person pleading non est factum must belong to "class of persons, who through no fault of their own, are unable to have any understanding of the purpose of the particular document because of blindness, illiteracy or some other disability". [1] The disability must be one requiring the reliance on others for advice as to what they are signing. [1] [2]
  2. The "signatory must have made a fundamental mistake as to the nature of the contents of the document being signed", including its practical effects. [1]
  3. The document must have been radically different from one intended to be signed. [1]

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, or carelessness, [2] : para 12  will not allow for non est factum. Furthermore, the Court has noted that there is a heavy onus that must be discharged to establish this defence as it is an "exceptional defence". [1] [2] : 359–60 

Notable examples

In the Australian case Petelin v Cullen (1975), [2] the defendant, Petelin, was illiterate and could speak very little English, but still signed a document he believed to be a receipt for $50 but which actually gave Cullen the option to purchase Petelin's land, which he exercised. Petelin refused to sign the contract for sale, alleging he had been deceived, and Cullen sought specific performance. The High Court of Australia found that because of Petelin's mistaken belief which was not because of his carelessness, his claim of non est factum was successful. The court noted that even if he had been careless, "Cullen was not an 'innocent person without knowledge or reason to doubt the validity of the appellant's signature'". [2] : para 15  [4]

In the English case of Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse [5] a father acted as a guarantor to his son's debt when purchasing a farm. The father was illiterate and signed the bank 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 illiterate, this was a mistake as to the document signed and the father was successful in claiming non est factum.

In the English case of Foster v Mackinnon, [6] an elderly man signed a bill of exchange but was only shown the back of it. He was granted a new trial. [7]

Illustratively, in the New South Wales case Ford v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd, [8] [9] the son of Mr. Ford (Appellant) had arranged a loan from a bank to arrange for the purchase of a cleaning business, by using his father's residential property as security. When he defaulted, the bank sought to enforce its rights under the loan and mortgage agreements. Because Mr Ford was illiterate (though capable of signing his name), suffered from a "significant congenital intellectual impairment" and had no understanding of the particulars of the agreement or consequences of non-payment, the judge at appeal found that he had been the pawn of his son throughout, and "his mind was a mere channel through which the will of his son operated". [9] The Court dismissed the argument that the appellant had been careless as that would presume that he was capable of turning his mind to the issue and making judgements. [9] It ruled that Mr Ford lacked legal capacity, and therefore contract was void for non est factum. This example illustrates an application of Petelin v Cullen [1975] as it depicts the necessary level of incapacity and level of misunderstanding required to shift the heavy burden of the party raising the defence.

Related Research Articles

Standard form contract Type of contract between two parties

A standard form contract is a contract between two parties, where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position.

Guarantee is a legal term more comprehensive and of higher import than either warranty or "security". It most commonly designates a private transaction by means of which one person, to obtain some trust, confidence or credit for another, engages to be answerable for him. It may also designate a treaty through which claims, rights or possessions are secured. It is to be differentiated from the colloquial "personal guarantee" in that a guarantee is a legal concept which produces an economic effect. A personal guarantee by contrast is often used to refer to a promise made by an individual which is supported by, or assured through, the word of the individual. In the same way, a guarantee produces a legal effect wherein one party affirms the promise of another by promising to themselves pay if default occurs.

Unconscionability 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.

Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.

Australian contract law

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

<i>Royal British Bank v Turquand</i>

Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 E&B 327 is a UK company law case that held people transacting with companies are entitled to assume that internal company rules are complied with, even if they are not. This "indoor management rule" or the "Rule in Turquand's Case" is applicable in most of the common law world. It originally mitigated the harshness of the constructive notice doctrine, and in the UK it is now supplemented by the Companies Act 2006 sections 39-41.

Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning (1978), 83 DLR (3d) 400 is a leading Canadian contract law decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario on standard form contracts. The Court held that a party can only be bound to a signed standard form contract when it is reasonable to believe that they consented to the terms.

<i>LEstrange v F Graucob Ltd</i>

L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 is a leading English contract law case on the incorporation of terms into a contract by signature. There are exceptions to the rule that a person is bound by his or her signature, including fraud, misrepresentation and non est factum.

The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.

<i>Saunders v Anglia Building Society</i>

Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970] UKHL 5 also known as Gallie v Lee is an English contract law case in the United Kingdom. It established that in contract law the burden lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate he has not acted negligently and, that consequently, the plea of non est factum cannot normally be claimed by a person of full capacity.

The creation of express trusts in English law must involve four elements for the trust to be valid: capacity, certainty, constitution and formality. Capacity refers to the settlor's ability to create a trust in the first place; generally speaking, anyone capable of holding property can create a trust. There are exceptions for statutory bodies and corporations, and minors who usually cannot hold property can, in some circumstances, create trusts. Certainty refers to the three certainties required for a trust to be valid. The trust instrument must show certainty of intention to create a trust, certainty of what the subject matter of the trust is, and certainty of who the beneficiaries are. Where there is uncertainty for whatever reason, the trust will fail, although the courts have developed ways around this. Constitution means that for the trust to be valid, the property must have been transferred from the settlor to the trustees.

<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.

South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa. In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.

<i>Canada v GlaxoSmithKline Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada v GlaxoSmithKline Inc is the first ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada that deals with issues involving transfer pricing and how they are treated under the Income Tax Act of Canada ("ITA").

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

<i>Louth v Diprose</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Louth v Diprose, is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which unconscionable conduct is considered.

<i>Chiswick Investments v Pevats</i>

Chiswick Investments v Pevats [1990] 1 NZLR 169 is a cited New Zealand case regarding mistake.

<i>Jenkins v NZI Finance Ltd</i>

Jenkins v NZI Finance Ltd (1991) 3 NZBLC 102,198 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding that the common law remedy of non est factum for a contract is not available simply because a party was careless in signing a contract without first properly reading it.

<i>Landzeal Group Ltd v Kyne</i>

Landzeal Group Ltd v Kyne [1990] 3 NZLR 574 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the enforceability of employment restraint of trade contracts as well as the plea of non est factum.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chew, C.Y.C. "The Application of the Defence of Non Est Factum: An Exploration of its Limits and Boundaries" (PDF). (2009) 13(1) University of Western Sydney Law Review 83.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Petelin v Cullen [1975] HCA 24 , (1975) 132 CLR 355, High Court (Australia).
  3. ↑ Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970] UKHL 5 , [1971] AC 1004, House of Lords (UK).
  4. ↑ Clarke, Julie. "Petelin v Cullen". Australian Contract Law. Archived from the original on 14 August 2017.
  5. ↑ Lloyds Bank v Waterhouse [1993] 2 FLR 97.
  6. ↑ Foster v Mackinnon (1869) LR 4 CP 704.
  7. ↑ Davies, W. E. D. (1965). "Negligence and Non Est Factum: Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Company v Bragg Re-Examined". University of Western Australia Law Review. (1965) 7(2) University of Western Australia Law Review 191.
  8. ↑ Ford v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2009] NSWCA 186 , (2009) 257 ALR 658, Court of Appeal (NSW,Australia).
  9. 1 2 3 Bant, Elise (2009). "Incapacity, Non Est Factum and Unjust Enrichment". Melbourne University Law Review. (2009) 33(2) Melbourne University Law Review 368.
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.