This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BCL Law Notes Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

Williams V. Bayley Notes

Updated Williams V. Bayley Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL

Approximately 620 pages

These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrased) I made during the Oxford BCL for the Restitution of Unjust Enrichment course....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Williams v. Bayley

Facts

On Friday the 17th of April, 1863, the father being at a railway station, and circumstances having arisen which caused these bankers to have doubts about the signatures to certain bills or promissory notes, and the bankers wishing to satisfy themselves whether a signature was, as it purported to be, that of the father, James Bayley, they presented to him a note for 500 made by the son, and purporting to contain the father's signature, and asked him whether that was his signature. The father denied it. The bank manager, who was present, was much surprised to find that the signature was not correct, and it was arranged that the matter should be looked into, that it should stand over then, and that there should be another meeting with the parties on the following day. It appears that, in the course of the evening of that day, the son, William Bayley, was communicated with. He was informed of what had taken place; and, I suppose, the conclusion was come to in the family that the son had been in the habit of using his father's name without his sanction. I say "using his father's name without his sanction," for I have no doubt at all in coming to the conclusion (there is not a tittle of evidence to the contrary) that all these signatures were forgeries. That they were not the signatures of the father is clear, and I do not think there is the smallest reason to suppose that he ever gave his son any express or implied authority to sign the bills in his name.

One member of the family, Thomas Abishai Bayley (another son of the Respondent and brother of William), who is not at all involved in these transactions, went with his father to the bank, and then considerable negotiation took place. It is obvious that at that time the bankers must have seen that they were in great jeopardy as to the notes, and that they would probably lose their money unless the father came in and assisted the son. I cannot, however, but come to the conclusion, from the evidence, that they strongly suspected, indeed they must be said to have known, that these signatures were forgeries. If the signatures were forgeries, then the bankers were in this position, that they had the means of prosecuting the son.

When the parties met on Saturday, there was a very significant expression made use of by Mr. Deakin, the manager, in the presence of one of the bankers, Henry Williams, "We do not wish to exercise pressure on you if it can be satisfactorily arranged."… The "pressure" there referred to must be something different from merely obtaining the security of the father. It amounts to this: "Take your choice - give us security for your son's debt. If you take that on yourself, then it will all go smoothly; if you do not, we shall be bound to exercise pressure;" which could only mean, to exercise those rights which remain to us, by reason of our holding signatures forged by your son.

The father said something about the son paying the bankers by instalments of 1000 a-year. To which one of the bankers answered, "We shall have nothing to do with any 1000 a-year. If the bills are yours" (addressing the Plaintiff) "we are all right. If they are not, we have only one course to pursue; we cannot be parties to compounding a felony." Now, according to my interpretation of the law, it does not amount to compounding a felony. But one sees clearly what the parties meant. It was this: If you choose to take on yourself the responsibility of these bills, all will be right; but if not, we cannot be parties to what they call "compounding a felony;" but what Lord Ellenborough more correctly called "stifling a prosecution."

The solicitor of the bankers said, "Yes, it is a serious matter," and Mr. Duignan remarked, "it is a case of transportation for life." Now that was said in the hearing of the bankers. They must have heard it. They must have known, while all these negotiations were going on, that all the parties to them understood that this was a case, not of life or death, but of transportation for life. The father, then, was acting in this matter under the notion that if he did not interfere to save his son, the latter would be liable to be prosecuted, and, probably, would be prosecuted for forgery, and so be transported for life.

Holding

Lord Cranworth

I am bound to go the length of saying that I do not think it is legal. I do not think that a transaction of that sort would have been legal even if, instead of being forced on the father, it had been proposed by him and adopted by the bankers; and I come to that conclusion upon this short ground, that in Wallace v. Hardacre (1), although the decision there, founded upon the facts of that particular case, was against the view I am taking, yet there Lord Ellenborough positively states that which has always been understood to be the correct view of the law upon this subject, namely, that although in that case there was no reason for treating the agreement as invalid, yet it would have been otherwise if the agreement had been substantially an agreement to stifle a criminal prosecution.

Now, is the agreement in question, or is it not, one the object of which is to stifle a criminal prosecution? If there be any case in which that character can be properly given to an agreement I think that this is such a case, and therefore, in my opinion, the decree is perfectly right.

Lord Chelmsford

I agree...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.

More Restitution Of Unjust Enrichment Bcl Samples