Contract law - validity Flashcards
Gray v Binny (1879)
Gray, 24 and heir under a deed of entail, executed a deed by which he parted with his rights in an estate for very much less than the true value. He was persuaded to enter the agreement by his mother and he legal advisor Binny, to whom she was deeply in debt. The mother died soon afterwards and Gray brought an action for reduction.
HELD: The court reduced the agreement on the basis that Gray had been unduly influenced by his mother. “It seems to me to be very clear that a deed so prejudicial to the granter, and obtained in such circumstances cannot, when challenged, be allowed to stand.” – Lord Shan
Philips v Brooks (1919)
A rogue purchased some items from the claimant’s jeweller’s shop claiming to be Sir George Bullogh. He paid by cheque and persuaded the jewellers to allow him to take a ring immediately as he claimed it was the wife’s birthday the following day. He gave the address of Sir George Bullogh and the jewellers checked the name matched with the address in the directory. The rogue then pawned the ring at the defendant pawn brokers in the name of Mr. Firth and received. £350, he then disappeared without a trace. The claimant brought an action based on unilateral mistake as to identity.
HELD: the contract was not void for mistake. Where the parties transact face to face the law presumes, they intend to deal with the person in front of the not the person they claim to be. The jewellers were unable to demonstrate that they would only have sold the ring to Sir George Bullogh
