Saunders v Anglia Building Society
The defence of non est factum is available only where the document signed is radically different from what the signer believed and the signer was not careless.
Facts
Mrs Gallie, a widow aged 78, owned a house. She wanted to help her nephew, Walter Parkin, raise money on the house. Mr Lee, a friend of the nephew, asked her to sign a document, which she was told was a deed of gift of the house to the nephew. Her glasses were broken, so she did not read it. In fact the document assigned the house to Mr Lee for £3,000, which he never paid. Mr Lee mortgaged the house to the Anglia Building Society and defaulted on the mortgage. Mrs Gallie claimed that the assignment was void on the ground of non est factum, meaning it is not my deed. She died during the litigation, and Mrs Saunders continued the case as her executrix.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the plea of non est factum failed, so the assignment and the building society's mortgage were valid. The defence is available only in narrow circumstances: the document signed must be fundamentally or radically different from the document the signer thought she was signing, and the signer must not have been careless in signing. Here, the document was not radically different, because Mrs Gallie intended to transfer the house so that money could be raised on it, and the assignment achieved that purpose, though in favour of a different person. She had also been careless in signing without reading it. The defence must be kept within narrow limits to protect innocent third parties who rely on signed documents.
Related cases on mistake
- Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v Crédit du Nord SA [1989] 1 WLR 255
- Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1932] AC 161
- Couturier v Hastie (1856) 5 HLC 673
- Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459
- Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407, [2003] QB 679
- Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566
- Ingram v Little [1961] 1 QB 31
- Lewis v Averay [1972] 1 QB 198
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
