Variation of agreement
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette Case Summaries ; (1993) EGCS 97(1) (29/5/93)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: "B M Samuels Finance Group plc v Beechmanor Ltd and others" CA 20 May 1993. Refinancing was agreed between most of the parties involved in a development loan after the borrowers were unable to repay their debt. However one of the debtors was unaware of the agreement and had never consented to one of the parties being released. Dispute arose when the creditors called in the outstanding loan with interest and claimed possession of the houses given as surety. At the first trial, changes to the second agreement were deemed too great to be described as a variation and the judge ruled in favour of one of the defendants. The plaintiff`s appeal was allowed, however, and all defendants remained liable.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | W5046 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 70131-1001 |
"B M Samuels Finance Group plc v Beechmanor Ltd and others" CA 20 May 1993. Refinancing was agreed between most of the parties involved in a development loan after the borrowers were unable to repay their debt. However one of the debtors was unaware of the agreement and had never consented to one of the parties being released. Dispute arose when the creditors called in the outstanding loan with interest and claimed possession of the houses given as surety. At the first trial, changes to the second agreement were deemed too great to be described as a variation and the judge ruled in favour of one of the defendants. The plaintiff`s appeal was allowed, however, and all defendants remained liable.