Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Royal Bank of Canada v. Gill (1988)

No description

Ivan Zhang

on 6 March 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Royal Bank of Canada v. Gill (1988)

Royal Bank of Canada v. Gill (1988)
Party Involved
Royal Bank of Canada

Key Factor
Misrepresentation: False and misleading statements that induce a person to enter into contract.
In this case, the son trying to prove RBC mislead his father, Senior Gill, enter the contract.

Case court structure
Time Line
In April 1981, Junior Gill borrow $87,000 from RBC

Party Involved
Senior Gill-Jaginder Singh Gill
He cannot speaking, writing and reading in English.
Operating an berry farm which worth $474,000.

Junior Gill-Avtar Singh Gill
Mr. Gill can communicate fluently in English.
Working for credit union during 1977 to 1981, he is familiar with nature of guarantee and with some experience of investment and securities.

Key Point
What is non est factum ?
It means “it is not (my) deed,” in contract law, represents the document signed was fundamentally, radically or totally different from the one that he expected to sign.

Royal Bank of Canada v. Gill (1988)
PRESENTED BY: Ivan & Ashley

PRESENTED BY: Ivan& Ashley

Case Summary
Parties Involved
Key Factors
Judges’ Conclusions & Reasoning
Our Position

Avtar Singh Gill

In 1982, Junior Gill started to make repayment

In June 1984, Senior Gill died.

Junior Gill claimed bankrupt

Same year, RBC did not receive October and November payment from Junior Gill

Judge conclusion
Gill junior appear to be careless in executing a guarantee without considering all the circumstances of the case.

Bank was not careless in respect of the execution of the guarantee.

Loan contract signed was not fundamentally different from the one that he expected to sign, non est factum reject

Review and process of the case



Non est factum


Consensus=offer + acceptance

Gill junior sign the contract with his father

Incomplete or improper performance of contract

In the Gill’s case, repudiation apply to breach by refusal to repay loan balance.

Review and process of the case
United Kingdom by Saunders v. Anglia Bldg. Soc., [1971] A.C. 1004

Possible remedies

RBC make a loan offer

Gill junior accept the offer


The offeror decides to make a firm offer to the offeree, for example, I am buying the shirt for $30 instead of I am thinking of buying.

It is an unconditional agreement to all the terms of the offer without other’s approval

Gill junior got a discount rate on the loan.

Gill’s flipping plan was unfavorable

Gill’s negative cash flow and indebtedness

Unable to repay the mortgage

Non est factum= It is not my act.

Two leg test

the signer must not be “careless” in executing the document

qualitative difference between the document intended to be signed and that which is actually signed

Monetary damages : Gill junior pay $53000 residual payment

Seize the berry farm and result in an court auction

What condition Mr Gill could win the case?
The contract is fundamentally different from what he sign.
Example: translation errors in the
Support:International contract
between multinational parties.

Our position
1. RBC win the case because of obey the fundamental rule of the loan contract.

2. On the contrary, Gill’s statement of defence is not valid for non est factum and defences cannot succeed.

3.Reminder loan and legal cost are entitled to Gill.

A- Agreement

B- Gill junior would like to escape the loan contract by avoiding $50000 balance payment.

C- Loan contract is clear and certain, 4w+how.

D-Damages are required if breach of contract.
Monetary damages/Seize berry farm


Question: A breach of contract occurs when

A. an unforeseen event makes performance impossible.

B. there is incomplete or improper performance of contractual obligations.

C. no consensus can be reached between the parties.

D. there is no consideration.

E. one of the parties to the contract dies.

Do you agree with the judgement?
Full transcript