Non est factum Definition

Case studies

"There's a good range of Risk and Compliance materials, checklists and outline frameworks in one place. I think that's the difference. Everything's much more searchable, it cuts time and we can find what we really want."

Southampton FC

Access all documents on Non est factum

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

What does Non est factum mean?

A plea that a person who appears to have executed a deed did not in fact do so.

The plea is available where the party seeking to rely on it can show either that he did not execute the deed or that he did so only because he was materially misled as to its content. Historically, the plea was sometimes known by the law French phrase nient son fait.

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Dispute resolution and derivatives

Dispute resolution and derivatives The nature, main types and main uses of financial derivatives are summarised in Practice Notes: The nature of financial derivatives and Types of derivatives. Derivative contracts frequently give rise to disputes between the parties that enter into them. This Practice Note discusses: • the common categories of disputes that arise from derivative contracts • relevant case law relating to those categories • tips for practitioners when drafting derivative contracts on avoiding future disputes, and • modes of dispute resolution available for resolving derivatives contract disputes Common categories of derivative disputes Derivatives can give rise to a range of disputes. In common with any scenario in which parties negotiate, enter into and perform (or fail to perform) a contract, claims may arise, for example: • for negligent misstatement, deceit or breach of section 2 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967) in relation to false or misleading statements made prior to entry into the contract (for more information, see: Misrepresentation, misstatement and other claims...

Liability for invalid appointment of LPA or fixed charge receiver

Liability for invalid appointment of LPA or fixed charge receiver Why an LPA/fixed charge receiver could be invalidly appointed An LPA/fixed charge receiver can be invalidly appointed for two main reasons: • first, if there is some invalidity in the security documentation which prevents the mortgagee from exercising its remedies • second, where the security is valid but the mortgagee fails to follow the correct procedures to trigger the power to appoint or there is some invalidity in the actual appointment of the LPA/fixed charge receiver Consequences of invalid appointment The consequences of an invalid appointment are potentially significant. The LPA/fixed charge receiver will have no status or authority if the appointment is defective for either of the reasons mentioned above. If they hold themselves out to be a receiver and receive rent or sell property, they do so without authority and the mortgagor would have a claim against the LPA/fixed charge receiver and the mortgagee. See John Smith & Co (Edinburgh) v Hill. The possible claims...

Discover our 11 Practice Notes on Non est factum

Under what grounds can a contract be deemed void if what the contract purported to do was impossible at the time the contract was concluded?

Under what grounds can a contract be deemed void if what the contract purported to do was impossible at the time the contract was concluded? In answering this Q&A, the grounds upon which a contract can be deemed to be void if what the contract purported to do was impossible at the time the contract was concluded have been taken into consideration. A contract can be ‘deemed’ to be void by a court of law. However, a void contract, in contrast to a voidable contract, is void ab initio—from the moment it is purportedly entered into. The law treats a void contract as if it had never been made. It is not legally valid at any point in its existence and neither party can go to court to enforce its terms. See generally: Contracts—termination and contractual claims and remedies—overview and Practice Note: Void contracts. A contract that is void must be distinguished from one that is merely voidable and one that is unenforceable. Voidable contracts A voidable contract is one that a party...

A landlord proposes to grant a lease but does not intend to appoint a solicitor. The landlord has asked that the tenant’s solicitor drafts the lease. Are there any problems with this approach from the tenant’s perspective?

A landlord proposes to grant a lease but does not intend to appoint a solicitor. The landlord has asked that the tenant’s solicitor drafts the lease. Are there any problems with this approach from the tenant’s perspective? In considering this Q&A it is important to bear in mind that when entering into a commercial lease it is likely that both parties are acting within the course of a business. As such, the starting point is to assume that both parties are free to enter into any contractual document and to negotiate the terms accordingly. There is no code of conduct in relation to the granting of leases of commercial leases and no restriction on the tenant’s solicitor providing a draft of the lease for the inspection and approval of the landlord. It is the landlord’s decision to deal with the matter in an unrepresented fashion; and in the event that he is content for the proposed tenant to provide a draft copy of the lease then the...

See the 3 Q&As about Non est factum

Property Disputes weekly highlights—17 October 2024

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: progress of the Renters’ Rights Bill including a call for evidence, High Court decisions on restructuring plans, the requirements for a successful proprietary estoppel claim, injunctions to restrain anticipated protests at airports, and the legal test for quia timet injunctive relief.

Private Client weekly highlights—17 October 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Morris v Morris, in which the court held that the forfeiture rule did not apply in the particular circumstances of the case; (2) HMRC updates form IHT435 and guidance on IHT100 suite of forms; (3) Cleave v Cleave, which considered the requirements for a proprietary estoppel claim when dealing with a trust of land; (4) Lime and Black v Mistry, where a de facto director was held liable for a company’s losses); (5) the Competition and Markets Authority new consumer law guidance for unregulated legal services, including will-writing and pre-paid probate services; and (6) Trustees of Panico Panayi Accumulation and Maintenance Settlements No 1 to 4 v HMRC, in which the Upper Tribunal applied conforming interpretation of exit tax legislation.

Read the latest 10 News articles on Non est factum

Top

Trial

��Ƶ

GLOSSARY