Buckwold Western Ltd. v. Sager â UNDUE INFLUENCE Facts ...
Buckwold Western Ltd. v. Sager – UNDUE INFLUENCE Facts: Defendant Collyne Sager signed document guaranteeing payment of monies owing from time to time by London Carpets Ltd. to predecessor company of the plaintiff. Defendant Laurence Sager signed similar guarantee earlier. Plaintiff claims $77,415.16 against Ms. Sager, sum owing by London Carpets Ltd. Ms Sager admits signing guarantee, denies awareness of its possible consequences. Issues: 1. Is the guarantee enforceable? Decision: 1. The creditor, who supplied the goods in reliance on the guarantee, is entitled to enforce the guarantee. Reason: 1. No improper pressure brought upon Ms. Sager; pressure imposed by Mr. Sager nothing more than standard commercial pressure – gist of commercial arrangement between London Carpets Ltd. and the supplier. Supplier wouldn’t extend greater credit unless it had some assurance beyond the company’s commitment that the bills would be paid and unless it had greater capacity to collect amounts that may becoming owing. 2. Ms. Sager didn’t act under undue influence; had document for some time before she signed, knew correctly that her signature was required for the family company to transact business w/ creditor; chose to take risk that was represented by signing documents. Legal Principles: Defence of duress available to excuse a guarantor from payment on the guarantee where improper pressure has been placed on the guarantor – a question of the guarantor’s free will and the soundness of their consent. (Forced/pressured to enter contract against own will by threats of violence or imprisonment) Defence of undue influence available to guarantor where guarantee was entered into under the influence of another person to the extent that the guarantor couldn’t exercise his or her independent will and where this influence was known or ought to have been known by the creditor.
BUCKWOLD WESTERN LTD V. SAGAR Issue: is the guarantee enforceable? Was there evidence of duress or undue influence for Sagar to sign documents? Defence of duress – available to excuse a guarantor from payment on the guarantee where improper pressure has been placed on the guarantor – a question of the guarantor’s free will and the soundness of their consent. (Forced/pressured to enter contract against own will by threats of violence or imprisonment) Defence of undue influence – available to guarantor where guarantee was entered into under the influence of another person to the extent that the guarantor couldn’t exercise his or her independent will and where this influence was known or ought to have been known by the creditor.
Ms. Sagar seeks relief from guarantee on basis that she did not understand all consequences of signing it and did so after husband’s insistence. There is no improper pressure upon Ms Sagar (duress), not against her free will in giving consent – “standard commercial pressure”, had K for some time. Ms Sagar did not act under undue influence, knew risk by signing documents. Buckwold has judgment, entitled to enforce guarantee.
BUCKWOLD WESTERN LTD V. SAGAR Issue: is the guarantee enforceable? Was there evidence of duress or undue influence for Sagar to sign documents? Defence of duress – available to excuse a guarantor from payment on the guarantee where improper pressure has been placed on the guarantor – a question of the guarantor’s free will and the soundness of their consent. (Forced/pressured to enter contract against own will by threats of violence or imprisonment) Defence of undue influence – available to guarantor where guarantee was entered into under the influence of another person to the extent that the guarantor couldn’t exercise his or her independent will and where this influence was known or ought to have been known by the creditor.
Ms. Sagar seeks relief from guarantee on basis that she did not understand all consequences of signing it and did so after husband’s insistence. There is no improper pressure upon Ms Sagar (duress), not against her free will in giving consent – “standard commercial pressure”, had K for some time. Ms Sagar did not act under undue influence, knew risk by signing documents. Buckwold has judgment, entitled to enforce guarantee.
