Search results
Bundy (D) was an elderly and infirm farmer who gave a personal guarantee and a charge over his home to Lloyds Bank (C) in order to secure the overdraft of his son’s company; The bank manager who obtained the transaction from D admitted that he knew that C was implicitly relying on him for advice
The breach by the bank of their duty to take fiduciary care has upon the evidence as a whole been so affirmatively established that this Court can and should make an order setting aside the guarantee and the charge of 17th December 1969.
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] QB 326. Undue influence; guarantee; bank owing duty of care. Facts. Mr Bundy was elderly farmer. He and his son were long-time customers at Lloyds Bank – the son’s company also banked there. Lloyds guaranteed the company’s overdraft and charged the farm as security.
BCCI v Aboody [1989] 2 WLR 759. A husband and wife owned a family company and the company’s liabilities to its bank were secured, among other things, by charges of the wife’s house. The bank sought to enforce the securities and the wife pleaded actual undue influence by the husband.
10 lip 2023 · In the case of Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975] QB 326, Lord Denning MR established the doctrine of an inequality of bargaining power. Here, the parties stood on unequal footing upon heading into a contractual agreement; it combines undue influence, duress, and unconscionability.
8 Although Sir Eric exphasised the trust and confidence between the Bundy family and the bank, the tenor of his lordship's judgment suggests that it was not a vital feature of Mr. Bundy's defence that he was a client of the bank.
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy Court of Appeal Citations: [1975] QB 326; [1974] 3 WLR 501; [1974] 3 All ER 757; [1974] 2 Lloyd's Rep 366. Facts The defendant was the father of a man who borrowed money from the claimant bank for his company.
