EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS THE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES EXPRESSED BY DIXON J IN YERKEY V JONES AND DISCUSS HOW THESE PRINCIPLES IMPACTED UPON THE HIGH COURT’S DECISION IN GARCIA V NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK. In the case of Yerkey v Jones 1 (Yerkey v Jones), the judgment of Dixon J established a principle that operates in certain circumstances where a married woman provides a guarantee for her husband. While the principle has come under a significant amount of criticism in more recent times, it was reapplied in the case of Garcia v National Australia Bank. (Garcia v NAB).2 In the case of Yerkey v Jones, Estyn and Florence Jones entered an agreement to purchase a poultry farm located in Payncham from John and Mary Yerkey. The purchase price was to be paid in installments and it was a condition of the agreement that part of the purchase price was to be secured by a mortgage over a separate property at Wakerville owned by Mrs Jones – the agreement required Estyn Jones to give an undertaking that he would procure the execution of the mortgage by his wife. Mr Jones “did not prosper in the new enterprise” and after 12 months of trying to run the poultry farm – the venture was abandoned and the property was placed in the hands of caretakers. Mr and Mrs Yerkey brought proceedings for the recovery of principal and interest under the second mortgage. Both Mr and Mrs Jones defended the action. Mr Jones was unsuccessful at first instance and while Mrs Jones was successful at first instance, she was ultimately denied relief in the High Court. The importance of this decision is found in the Judgment of Dixon J, which articulates the existence of a special equity that protects a wife acting as a guarantor in relation to her husband’s debts. In ... ... middle of paper ... ...Table of Reference A Books • Phillip Clarke and Julie Clarke, Contract Law Commentaries, Cases and Perspectives, (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2012) 432-3. B Cases • Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395. • Yerkey v Jones (1939) 63 CLR 649. C Legislation • Married Women’s Property Acts D Other • Wikimedia Foundation Inc, Married Women's Property Act 1882 (5 March 2014) Wikipedia . • Australian Legal Information Institution, Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd [1998] HCA 48; 6 CCL 81; 194 CLR 395; 155 ALR 614; 72 ALJR 1243 (6 August 1998) Austlii . • The Legal Exchange, Extending the Garcia Principle (2 June 2012) The Legal Exchange .
Facts of the Case: Darleen Suggs started working and helped maintain the produce business with the decedent, Junior Earl Norris, from 1973 until his death in 1983. During this time and according to several witnesses, the plaintiff did most of the farm work, as well as drive to markets 60 miles away, without aid of the decedent. She also handled all finances and deposited them into their joint bank account, giving her the reason to believe they had an implied contract that she was a partner and would receive one-half of the profits. In
Case name: Peter K. Dementas v The Estate of Jack Tallas, 764 P.2d 628 (1988)
Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. - Counsel [24] See footnote 22 – but page 61 [25] GEOFFREY, Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford 1971 Chapter1 – the Law and the constitution, part 3. Dicey’s doctrine and its critics. [26] REGINA v HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, Ex parte SMEDLEY, [COURT OF APPEAL], [1985] Q B 657, 19 December 1984, (c)2001 The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales [27] MITCHELL, JDB, Constitutional Law, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, W Green & SON LTD, 1968, Convention, page 31 [28] See footnote 22 but page 64
To put the house out of reach of Jones, he bought a company "off the shelf" and conveyed the house to it. In an action against Lipman and the company, the court granted the specific performance and ruled that "the defendant company is the creature of the first defendant, a device and ...
It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.
United States of America. U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 1 Apr. 2003. 13 Nov. 2013
marriage and sets guidelines for property division in the event of the dissolution of the marriage.
Accessed 16/03/2012. http://www.law201.co.uk/95.pdfaccessed on 16/03/2012. http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199219742/01student/mindmaps/loveland_mindmaps_royal_prerogative.pdfaccessed on 17/03/2012. http://www.justice.gov.uk/royal-prerogative.pdf accessed on 17/03/2012. http://www.justice.gov.uk/royal-prerogative.pdf accessed on 18/03/2012.
Despite it’s longevity, consideration is not without criticism. Lord Goff observed in White v Jones that: ‘our law of contract is widely seen as deficient in the sense that it is perceived to be hampered by the presence of an unnecessary doctrine of consideration’. Abolition has been urged. Since the publication of the Law Revision Committee’s report in 1937, la...
The Special equity relating to wives whom act as guarantors of their husband’s debt was refined by Dixon J who gave the leading judgment in the case of Yerkey v Jones. The essence of the principle was that if a wife who is the surety of her husband’s debt doesn’t understand essential information, due to the fact that the creditor has relied on the husband to inform his wife, and not dealt with her personally, the wife has a prima facie right to have the debt set aside. The principle has faced scrutiny’s about being 'discriminatory' , that it patronizes married women as well as failing to provide equal protection to both sexes. However, in the High Court case of Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd the principle in Yerkey v Jones was revitalized by expanding the doctrine of unconscionability to include a special disability, suffered by a wife who acted as guarantor upon the circumstances in which the special equity principle applies. To reach their decision, elements of the special equity were applied in Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...
...ng justice to both parties in a marriage as domestic contribution made by a wife is considered equal to the financial contribution of the other party. This was established in the case the Marriage of Kemp (1976) 2 Fam LR 11, 289. Spousal maintenance provides justice to those who are unable to support themselves due to caring for children and inability to work due to illness.