Contribution (Lionel Smith, 15 Jun 1999)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Lionel Smith
Date:	Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:37:33 +0100
Re:	Contribution

Stimpson v. Smith [1999] 2 WLR 1292 (CA): plaintiff and defendant were joint and several guarantors of a company, up to £25k. The guarantee required written demand. The company was in trouble. The plaintiff paid the bank £20k without any written demand, and without the knowledge of the defendant, on the basis that the plaintiff and defendant would both be released from further liability. The plaintiff sued the defendant for £10k and won.

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.