Royal Bank of Scotland v. Greenshields [1914] ScotLR 260 (14 January 1914)

Royal Bank of Scotland v. Greenshields [1914] ScotLR 260 (14 January 1914)

No specific question was put to the bank agent imposing a duty of disclosure; no misrepresentation was proved; the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defence and invalidate the guarantee. The bank agent's incidental remarks did not amount to a representation of the debtor's total indebtedness, nor did they trigger a duty of full disclosure.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 260
Parties
Pursuer: Royal Bank of Scotland; Defender: James John Greenshields (deceased, representatives sisted)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 January 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Outer House to Inner House
Outcome
judgment for pursuer
Legal Topics
Guarantee, Misrepresentation, Duty of Disclosure, Cautioner Liability
Banking Law Contract Law Mercantile Law Guarantee Misrepresentation Duty of Disclosure Cautioner Liability

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bank of Scotland

Pursuer

James John Greenshields (deceased, representatives sisted)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Outer House to Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bank agent owes a duty of disclosure to an intending guarantor regarding the principal debtor's total indebtedness
  2. 2 Whether failure to disclose material facts amounts to misrepresentation sufficient to invalidate a guarantee
  3. 3 Applicability of Mercantile Law Amendment (Scotland) Act 1856, section 6

Ratio Decidendi

No specific question was put to the bank agent imposing a duty of disclosure; no misrepresentation was proved; the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defence and invalidate the guarantee. The bank agent's incidental remarks did not amount to a representation of the debtor's total indebtedness, nor did they trigger a duty of full disclosure.

Court Disposition

judgment for pursuer

Orders

  • Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled
  • Decree granted against defender for £500