CF Asset Finance Ltd v Okonji [2014] EWCA Civ 870 (24 June 2014)

CF Asset Finance Ltd v Okonji [2014] EWCA Civ 870 (24 June 2014)

The appeal is allowed because the appellants' offer was effectively revoked before acceptance by communication to the supplier, who had ostensible authority as agent for the finance company to receive such revocation. Therefore, no contract was concluded. The defence of non est factum does not arise due to the signatory's negligence in signing a blank agreement.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 870
Parties
Claimant/first Respondent: CF Asset Finance Limited; First Defendant/first Appellant: Mrs Franca Okonji; Second Defendant/second Appellant: Mr Kwame Siaw; Third Defendant/second Respondent: Ishirosoft Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Revocation of Offer, Non Est Factum, Agency Authority, Negligence in Signing Documents
Contract Law Agency Law Consumer Credit Revocation of Offer Non Est Factum Agency Authority Negligence in Signing Documents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CF Asset Finance Limited

Claimant/first Respondent

Mrs Franca Okonji

First Defendant/first Appellant

Mr Kwame Siaw

Second Defendant/second Appellant

Ishirosoft Limited

Third Defendant/second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hire agreement was binding given the alleged revocation of offer before acceptance
  2. 2 Whether the defence of non est factum was available to the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the appellants' offer was effectively revoked before acceptance by communication to the supplier, who had ostensible authority as agent for the finance company to receive such revocation. Therefore, no contract was concluded. The defence of non est factum does not arise due to the signatory's negligence in signing a blank agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment against the appellants set aside
  • No contract was concluded between the parties