Scribd Logo
Unggah

Selamat datang di Scribd!

  • 7 Lawless V Temple

    Diunggah oleh

    r
    69 tayangan1 halaman
    This case involves a bill of exchange where the drawee, ME Temple, had merely signed his name but contested that it did not constitute a valid acceptance under the requirements that the acceptance must be in writing and signed. The court held that the signature alone of the drawee was sufficient to fulfill the statutory requirements of a written and signed acceptance, as the drawee's signature serves as both the writing and signature, and this has been commonly accepted in case law.

    Deskripsi Asli:

    `

    Judul Asli

    7 Lawless v Temple

    Hak Cipta

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Format Tersedia

    DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

    Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

    Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

    Laporkan Dokumen Ini
    This case involves a bill of exchange where the drawee, ME Temple, had merely signed his name but contested that it did not constitute a valid acceptance under the requirements that the acceptance must be in writing and signed. The court held that the signature alone of the drawee was sufficient to fulfill the statutory requirements of a written and signed acceptance, as the drawee's signature serves as both the writing and signature, and this has been commonly accepted in case law.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    69 tayangan1 halaman

    7 Lawless V Temple

    Diunggah oleh

    r
    This case involves a bill of exchange where the drawee, ME Temple, had merely signed his name but contested that it did not constitute a valid acceptance under the requirements that the acceptance must be in writing and signed. The court held that the signature alone of the drawee was sufficient to fulfill the statutory requirements of a written and signed acceptance, as the drawee's signature serves as both the writing and signature, and this has been commonly accepted in case law.

    Hak Cipta:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Unduh sebagai DOCX, PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
    Tandai sebagai konten tidak pantas
    dari 1

    LAWLESS V TEMPLE

    8 January 1926; 254 Mass 395, 150 NE 176


    FACTS
    SUBJECT: bill
    PAYEE: Hazel Lawless
    DRAWER: Norris J. Temple
    DRAWEE: Maurice E. Temple
    On the instrument appears ME Temple's signature
    ME Temple contends that the mere signature of the name of the drawee on
    the bill cannot fulfill the requirements that the signification of the assent of
    the drawee must be in writing and must be signed.
    ISSUE
    W/N the signature of the drawee is sufficient acceptance? YES.
    RATIO
    The acceptance of a bill is the signification by the drawee of his assent to the order
    of the drawer. The acceptance must be in writing and signed by the drawee. It must
    not express that the drawee will perform his promise by any other means than the
    payment of money.
    Acceptance must be in writing because sound policy requires that some substantial
    and tangible evidence of the contract is more reliable in nature than the statement
    or recollection of witnesses. The common practice before the NIL was to write the
    word "accepted" + the signature on the face of the bill.
    But based on case law, the signature is both a writing and signing. The name alone
    is constantly holden to satisfy the requirement.
    A drawee may be charged as acceptor although he writes merely his name upon the
    bill and that anyone taking the bill has the right to fill up a blank acceptance on the
    same principle that a holder may fill up a blank indorsement.

    Anda mungkin juga menyukai