Large PLC Case Summary
Bradley, as a co-owner and resident with Adam, applies for a loan of £200,000 for a business unit on the residence. To receive this loan from Large PLC, Bradley signs a contract that uses the house as collateral. Due to the failure of the business, Large PLC seeks to obtain the house on its terms. Bradley can defend his home from Large PLC by relying on undue influence, misrepresentation by Carlotta, equitable doctrine of unconscionable bargains, and statutory consumer protection.
Legal issues in original scenario
There is a legally binding contract between Bradley and Large PLC. An offer of a specific monetary loan was presented by Large PLC to Bradley, which he accepted by signing the document agreeing to charge. Bradley placing his home …show more content…
Large PLC knowing this relationship is put on constructive notice. Bradley’s agreement to the transaction not being readily explainable and his relationship with Adam as cohabitees gives rise to presumed undue influence of class 2b. Once a presumption is established it is the duty of the stronger party to prove the equity of the contract. A class 2b relationship allows for the presumption of undue influence due to a relationship of trust and confidence, such as cohabitees, but the relationship must be proven by the facts of the case. There is a relationship of trust and confidence between cohabitees, which was abused when Adam ‘…obtains an advantage at the expense of the confiding party [Bradley]…[and] will not be able to retain the advantage’. Bradley has no interest or authority in the business that is using the £200,000 loan, leading to the presumption that his relationship with Adam influenced him to sign the …show more content…
Nevertheless, Bradley and Adam being owners of the estate creates a partnership between two individuals who previously had a personal relationship as cohabitees. Bradley had entrusted in Adam management of the residence he owned while he was not a resident. This trusting of duty placed on Adam combined with the current monetary partnership and previous personal relationship can support establishing class 2b presumed undue influence. Evidence of Bradley’s recent move from the residence and continued relationship between the two could prove Large PLC’s constructive notice equal to that in the original
Legal issues in original scenario
There is a legally binding contract between Bradley and Large PLC. An offer of a specific monetary loan was presented by Large PLC to Bradley, which he accepted by signing the document agreeing to charge. Bradley placing his home …show more content…
Large PLC knowing this relationship is put on constructive notice. Bradley’s agreement to the transaction not being readily explainable and his relationship with Adam as cohabitees gives rise to presumed undue influence of class 2b. Once a presumption is established it is the duty of the stronger party to prove the equity of the contract. A class 2b relationship allows for the presumption of undue influence due to a relationship of trust and confidence, such as cohabitees, but the relationship must be proven by the facts of the case. There is a relationship of trust and confidence between cohabitees, which was abused when Adam ‘…obtains an advantage at the expense of the confiding party [Bradley]…[and] will not be able to retain the advantage’. Bradley has no interest or authority in the business that is using the £200,000 loan, leading to the presumption that his relationship with Adam influenced him to sign the …show more content…
Nevertheless, Bradley and Adam being owners of the estate creates a partnership between two individuals who previously had a personal relationship as cohabitees. Bradley had entrusted in Adam management of the residence he owned while he was not a resident. This trusting of duty placed on Adam combined with the current monetary partnership and previous personal relationship can support establishing class 2b presumed undue influence. Evidence of Bradley’s recent move from the residence and continued relationship between the two could prove Large PLC’s constructive notice equal to that in the original