Clare Baker and Farhaz Khan comment in The Lawyer magazine

The doctrine of contractual estoppel looms large in cases where a counterparty to a bank alleges that the bank is liable to make good losses suffered as a result of entering into a financial transaction that has turned out to be unfavourable to the counterparty.

A formidable body of banking cases shows that parties to a transaction may agree that a particular state of affairs is to be the basis on which they are contracting, regardless of whether or not that state of affairs is true, and that such an agreement may give rise to a contractual estoppel, precluding the assertion of facts inconsistent with those that have been agreed to form the basis of the contract: see the archaeology of modern banking cases starting with Peekay (CA) and galvanised by Springwell (Gloster J/CA).

Read the full article in The Lawyer Magazine.

News 26 Jun, 2013