PrivacyCopyright and Disclaimer SitemapFeedbackHelpSearch
Home
About Us
Recent News
Current Projects
Publications - Active
Digest
Contribute to Law Reform
Law Reform Links
Contact Us
Where am I now? Lawlink > Law Reform Commission > Publications > Report 97 (2001) - The Rule in Pigot's Case

Report 97 (2001) - The Rule in Pigot's Case

Updates and background for this project (Digest)


Contents

Terms of reference
Participants
The Commission’s recommendation

1. INTRODUCTION
THE PLACE OF THE RULE IN THE LAW OF CONTRACTS
Types of contracts
THE ORIGINAL RULE
Relationship to the defence of non est factum
Purely a common law issue
REASONS FOR THE RULE
The document is the obligation
Evidential value
Punishment of fraud

2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RULE
TYPES OF DOCUMENTS COVERED
CLASSIFICATION OF ALTERATIONS
Materiality

      Effect on the liability of the person against whom the alteration is made
      Alteration of document or its legal effect?
Intention of the alterer: fraud and good intentions
THE PERSON MAKING THE ALTERATION
Alterations without consent
      Alteration by the promisor
      Alteration by the promisee
      Alteration by an agent of the promisee
      Alteration by strangers
Alterations with the consent of both parties
      Implied authority
      Fraud by both parties
EFFECT OF ALTERATION
Contract or underlying agreement?
      Deeds
      Other instruments
Consequences of the alteration: void or voidable?
      Subsequent revival
Is voidness appropriate in any case?
Availability of restitution

3. CRITICISMS OF THE RULE
THE DOCUMENT IS THE OBLIGATION
EVIDENTIAL VALUE
Criticisms
A part of the law of evidence?
PUNISHMENT OF FRAUD
Comparison with the law of wills
Availability of criminal sanctions

4. REFORMS
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAWS
Common law jurisdictions

      Australia
      United States
International conventions
GENERAL PROPOSALS AND CHANGES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
New Zealand
United States
      American Law Institute
POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION
Leave to the common law
Minor legislative changes
Retain the rule in respect of fraudulent alterations
Abolish the rule
THE COMMISSION’S CONCLUSION


APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A: Conveyancing Amendement (Rule in Pigot’s Case) Bill 2000
APPENDIX B: Submissions
 
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
TABLE OF CASES
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Previous Page | Back to Lawlink Home | Top of Page
  Last updated 5 July 2004   Crown Copyright 2002 ©  
Hosted by
Lawlink NSW