Mistake 3 - non est factum

Define non-est factum.

the mind of the signer did not accompany the signature.

What was held in BOI v McManamy [1978]?

the manager of a co-op asked the defendant members to sign documents which he said were order forms, but were bank guarantees. The court held that the defendants were not bound by the guarantees.

What was the test in Friends First Finance v Lavelle [2013]?

1. A radical/fundamental difference between what he signed and what he thought he was signing.

2. The mistake was as to the general character of the document as opposed to the legal effect.

3. There was a lack of negligence and the person took all reasonable precautions to find out what the document was.

What was held in AIB plc v McKenna [2014]?

the Court held that non est factum is only rarely invoked successfully.

What was held in AIB v Higgins [2015]?

the court rejected the defendant’s argument that he suffered from dyslexia as he didn’t take reasonable steps to check the contents of the document and was a man of commercial experience. 

What was held in IBRC v Quinn?

the court held that a person who signs a document without reading it or applying themselves to the content of the document, “must accept the consequences of having signed a commercially binding agreement in those circumstances.”

What was held in BOI v Curran [2016]?

 the signatory must have believed the document had a different character or effect and took reasonable steps to understand it. The defendant signed multiple parts of the guarantee, including a statement acknowledging understanding and waiving legal advice.