Search results
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.
16 sie 2024 · *Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy (1975)* is a key English contract law case that addresses issues of undue influence and unconscionable conduct in contracts. The case involved Bundy, who was...
Herbert Bundy guaranteed his son's company's overdraft for 1300 and charged Yew Tree Farm to the bank to secure the 1500. The bank had granted the son's company an overdraft up to a limit of 10,000, but this was not enough to meet the outgoings.
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. The defendant guaranteed the company's overdraft on behalf of his…
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
Sir Eric Sachs took a narrower view. In his Lordship's opinion, the linchpin of Mr. Bundy's defence was the nature of the relation-ship between the bank and Mr. Bundy. In the circumstances, reliance by Mr. Bundy on th6 advice of the bank was natural. He had in fact relied on them and they had a financial interest in the
He ordered Herbert Bundy to give up possession of Yew Tree Farm to the bank. Now there is an appeal to this Court.
