Undue influence, misrepresentation and the doctrine of notice

cbd
Thumbnail Image
Files
undue_influence_clj_CORA.pdf(136.33 KB)
Accepted version
Date
1995-11
Authors
Mee, John
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300097312
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
This article examines Lord Browne-Wilkinson's approach in Barclays Bank v O'Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 to the problem of third party undue influence (or misrepresentation) in the context of bank guarantees. It suggests that his use of the doctrine of constructive notice was not orthodox and that, despite the general welcome for the decision, there are serious problems with the approach in O'Brien.
Description
Keywords
English law , Misrepresentation , Undue influence , Debts , Bank guarantees
Citation
Mee, J. (1995) 'Undue Influence, Misrepresentation and the Doctrine of Notice', The Cambridge Law Journal, 54 (3), pp. 536 - 544, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300097312
Link to publisher’s version
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/10468/15793
Collections
Law - Journal Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1995. This article has been published in a revised form in The Cambridge Law Journal, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300097312. This version is published under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND licence. No commercial re-distribution or re-use allowed. Derivative works cannot be distributed.