| 词条 | Saunders v Anglia Building Society |
| 释义 |
| name = Saunders v Anglia Building Society | court = House of Lords | image =Eyeglasses.jpg | caption = | date decided = | full name = Also Gallie v Lee, in the House of Lords | citations = [1970] UKHL 5, [1971] AC 1004, [1970] 3 All ER 961 | judges = | prior actions = [1968] 2 All ER 322 | subsequent actions = | opinions = Lord Reid | transcripts = | keywords = Non est factum }}Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970] UKHL 5 also known as Gallie v Lee is an English contract law case in the United Kingdom.[1] 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.[2] FactsMrs Gallie, who had broken her spectacles, signed a document without first informing herself of its contents. She was lied to by her nephew's business partner, Mr Lee, that the documents were merely to confirm a gift of her house to her nephew. In fact, she signed papers allowing the nephew's business partner to grant a mortgage over the property in favour of Anglia Building Society. When the business partner defaulted on the mortgage, Anglia Building Society claimed to foreclose and repossess the House. Mrs Gallie died before the litigation reached the House of Lords, and was represented by Saunders. JudgmentCourt of AppealLord Denning MR, reversing the judge’s decision, found that Mrs Gallie was out of luck. Grown literate people cannot simply get away with signing things, and not being bound. House of LordsThe House of Lords upheld the Court of Appeal, though disapproving of the strength of Lord Denning’s criticisms. Lord Reid said the defence is unavailable for the following reasons.[3] {{Cquote|it must also apply in favour of those who are permanently or temporarily unable through no fault of their own to have without explanation any real understanding of the purport of a particular document, whether that be from defective education, illness or innate incapacity...There must, I think, be a radical difference between what he signed and what he thought he was signing - or one could use the words “fundamental” or “serious” or “very substantial.” But what amounts to a radical difference will depend on all the circumstances.}} See also{{Clist terms}}
Notes1. ^At first instance Gallie v Lee [1968] 2 All ER 322 and on appeal [1969] 1 All ER 1062 2. ^J Stone, 'The limits of Non Est Factum after Gallie v Lee' (1972) 88 Law Quarterly Review 190 3. ^ [1971] AC 1004, 1016 References
4 : English contract case law|House of Lords cases|1970 in British law|1970 in case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。