Egbase v oriareghan(1985); effect of non est factum on contract

Project Abstract

Egbase v Oriareghan (1985) is a landmark case in contract law that explores the doctrine of non est factum and its impact on contractual obligations. The case involves a situation where the plaintiff signed a document under the mistaken belief that it was a guarantee document, when in fact it was a deed of assignment. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff could rely on the defense of non est factum to avoid the contract. The doctrine of non est factum, which translates to "it is not my deed," allows a party to escape the obligations of a contract if they can prove that they signed the document under a fundamental mistake as to its nature or contents. This defense is based on the principle that a person should not be bound by a document that they did not intend to sign or understand. In Egbase v Oriareghan, the court considered the circumstances surrounding the signing of the document and the level of care taken by the plaintiff in understanding its contents. The court found that the plaintiff had not taken reasonable care in ascertaining the nature of the document before signing it, and therefore, the defense of non est factum was not available to him. As a result, the plaintiff was held to be bound by the terms of the deed of assignment. This case highlights the importance of exercising caution and diligence when entering into contracts, especially when signing legal documents. Parties are expected to read and understand the terms of the contract before signing to avoid situations where the defense of non est factum may not be available to them. The decision in Egbase v Oriareghan also underscores the significance of intention and understanding in contract law. It emphasizes that parties must be aware of the implications of their actions and cannot simply rely on a mistake to avoid contractual obligations. The case serves as a reminder that contracts are binding agreements that require careful consideration and understanding by all parties involved. In conclusion, Egbase v Oriareghan (1985) provides valuable insights into the application of the doctrine of non est factum in contract law. It demonstrates the importance of due diligence and understanding in contractual relationships and highlights the limitations of relying on mistakes to escape contractual obligations.

Project Overview

<p> </p><p>Man is by nature a social animal. An individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human…Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of the society, is either a beast or a god.This quote by Aristotle poignantly points out the fact that interactions with ourselves as human beings is a must, and the need for this interactions often lead to the necessity of an agreement based on a contract. However, owing to human foibles, there are times when this “agreement‟ is different from the intention either party had as regards the contract.</p><p>This study therefore examines the effect that law, especially the doctrine of NON EST FACTUM has on a contract.</p><p>It further examines the principle of MISTAKE which is a precursor to NON EST FACTUM, the effect of consent, which is central to the world of contracts and most especially the plea of NON EST FACTUM.</p><p>It also takes a look at its applicability in criminal cases and whether or not the plea itself can be used as a sword or a shield by either party.</p><p>Finally, this essay gives recommendations as to how the plea of NON EST FACTUM can be improved upon.</p> <br><p></p>