Harvey v Dunbar: satisfaction guaranteed?
By Ruth Evans
Harvey v Dunbar Assets highlights the potential adverse consequences for lenders when guarantees are not fully or correctly executed. When a single composite guarantee is not correctly entered into by all parties, the guarantee may itself be unenforceable.
Harvey and three others entered into a guarantee to enable a company to secure a £3m loan facility. The guarantee imposed joint and several liability on the co-sureties, meaning that if one guarantor were to be sued for the full amount, they would have a claim against their fellow guarantors for a contribution.
One guarantor claimed that his signature was a forgery and he had never actually signed the guarantee. When the bank subsequently tried to enforce the guarantee against another guarantor, Harvey, he claimed that on the assumption that one signature was a forgery none of the sureties were bound…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Shoosmiths briefing.
News from Shoosmiths
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Shoosmiths
Justice secretary Chris Grayling has outlined government proposals to quadruple the current six-month sentence for people found guilty of internet trolling.
Shoosmiths looks at the dangers of providing, or not providing, a reference and what employers can do if they receive an unsatisfactory reference.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Compliance and corporate governance codes for large financial institutions will undoubtedly include provisions to regulate high pay in the future
There’s more to the ABS model than attracting the man in the street and procuring external investment. Partners at the big corporate firms, take note…