Santley v Wilde [1899] 2 Ch 474
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:16 UTC
CA held that collateral advantages beyond the repayment of the sum owed are enforceable provided they are not unconscionable or oppressive or given under undue influence, duress etc.
Lindley MR
Collateral advantages wont be enforceable where they represent a clog on the right to redemption.
There is no reason to exclude advantages from contracts purely because that contracts one for a mortgage rather than another type.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Kreglinger v New Patagonia Meat Company
Under the terms of a mortgage, the mortgagee was to have the right of first refusal on products produced by the mortgagor. Mortgagor claimed that this collateral advantage could not have effect once...
Bradley v Carritt
Plaintiff, mortgagor, had a collateral agreement with Defendant, mortgagor, that it would use Defendant as a brokerer for all its deals and that failing this it would pay Defendant the commission to...
Warnborough v Garmite
Equity of redemption ensures that borrowers, even after defaulting on mortgage payments, retain the right to reclaim ownership of pledged property by settling the outstanding debt. It balances lender...
Noakes v Rice
Plaintiff, a mortgagor, was a pub, and agreed to purchase all alcohol from Defendant, mortgagee, even once no more money was owing. The HL said that collateral advantages are invalid where they repre...
Cityland Property v Dabrah
Defendant bought a house from Plaintiff, with some of the balance to be paid by a loan from Plaintiff to Defendant, which Defendant was to repay over time in return for granting a mortgage interest t...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.