negotiable-instruments:note:material-alteration
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
|
negotiable-instruments:note:material-alteration [2021/04/09 22:26] 127.0.0.1 external edit |
negotiable-instruments:note:material-alteration [2021/07/14 20:42] (current) LawPage |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| Addition of names, as joint executants, made without the consent of other parties is a material alteration unless it is made to carry out the common intention of the parties. Any variation from the original contract affecting the position of the parties will discharge the whole instrument. Where it was agreed that two persons would jointly execute a note and be jointly liable for the amount and one of them signed the note and the signature of the other was forged on the note, the note was not enforceable against any.((Amirtham v. Nanjah, 26 MLJ 257)) | Addition of names, as joint executants, made without the consent of other parties is a material alteration unless it is made to carry out the common intention of the parties. Any variation from the original contract affecting the position of the parties will discharge the whole instrument. Where it was agreed that two persons would jointly execute a note and be jointly liable for the amount and one of them signed the note and the signature of the other was forged on the note, the note was not enforceable against any.((Amirtham v. Nanjah, 26 MLJ 257)) | ||
| - | Similarly, there was material alteration where it was found that one of the executants had forged the signature of the other on the note and the creditor was aware of this fact.((Santhu v. Jamal, 1928 Mad 1092)) It is doubtful whether the facts of this case properly come under the operation of this section which applies to alterations after execution and not to anything done at the time of execution. Therefore, where a [[negotiable-instruments: | + | Similarly, there was material alteration where it was found that one of the executants had forged the signature of the other on the note and the creditor was aware of this fact.((Santhu v. Jamal, 1928 Mad 1092)) It is doubtful whether the facts of this case properly come under the operation of this section which applies to alterations after execution and not to anything done at the time of execution. Therefore, where a [[negotiable-instruments: |
| Conversion of several into a joint liability by altering 'I promise' | Conversion of several into a joint liability by altering 'I promise' | ||