Williams v Bayley

Williams v Bayley
Court	House of Lords
Citation(s)	(1866) LR 1 HL 20
Keywords
Undue influence

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

Facts

Mr Bayley’s son forged his father’s signature on promissory notes and gave them to Mr Williams. Mr Williams threatened Mr Bayley that he would bring criminal prosecution against his son unless he granted an equitable mortgage to get back the notes.

Judgment

House of Lords upheld the cancellation of the agreement, on account of undue influence.

Cases on undue influence

Allcard v Skinner (1877) LR 36 Ch D 145

Williams v Bayley (1886) LR 1 HL 200

Tate v Williamson (1886) LR 2 Ch App 55

Bank of Montreal v Stuart [1911] AC 120

Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1974] EWCA Civ 8

National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] UKHL 2

BCCI v Aboody [1992] 4 All ER 955

CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt [1993] UKHL 7

Barclays Bank plc v O'Brien [1993] 4 All ER 417

Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 41

National Westminster Bank plc v Amin [2002] UKHL 9

Hammond v Osborn [2002] EWCA Civ 885

National Commercial Bank of Jamaica v Hew [2003] UKPC 51

Pesticcio v Huet [2004] EWCA Civ 372

Thompson v Foy [2009] EWHC 1076 (Ch)

see Undue influence in English law

English contract law
Iniquitous pressure in English law
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] QB 326
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 350 F.2d 445 (C.A. D.C. 1965)

Notes

References

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, April 22, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.