82,891
edits
Deed: Difference between revisions
→Bibby v Magson
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
The directors’ personal guarantees, even though signed and witnessed, were not in a final form: Manuscript amendments had been made with the intention that clean versions of the documents would be prepared incorporating the amendments, which would then be circulated and signed again. | The directors’ personal guarantees, even though signed and witnessed, were not in a final form: Manuscript amendments had been made with the intention that clean versions of the documents would be prepared incorporating the amendments, which would then be circulated and signed again. | ||
At trial the directors’ argument won and Bibby could not enforce the documents as they had not been delivered as deeds. | At trial the directors’ argument won and Bibby could not enforce the documents as they had not been delivered as deeds. Whilst the case adds nothing new to the law surrounding the execution of deeds, it is a timely reminder that delivery of a deed should not be overlooked. | ||
It is possible to include clauses in deeds setting out when delivery occurs, usually when the document is dated. An alternative would be for a side letter to be prepared stating that delivery has occurred. | |||
====Ammwell View==== | |||
The legal community wags its prurient finger and admonishes the layman about the timely warning this case represents that one must get ones paper work right (''subtext: make sure you call a lawyer''). But in actual fact this is a poor decision. Clearly the directors' intentions in manscripting the changes and then executing the document evidences that they intended the documents to be binding. But ambulance chasing - or perhaps ambulance ''defending'' - members of the legal community see this as a good decision. Eheu. | |||