Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ... ment of account or any agreement purporting to Sect, I, close previous dealings and create a new obliga-Sub-sect'(1)-tion, re-open any account already taken between them, and relieve the person sued from payment of any sum in excess of the sum adjudged by the court to be fairly due in respect of such principal, interest and charges, as the court, having regard to the risk and all the circumstances, may adjudge to be reasonable; and if any such excess has been paid, or allowed in account, by the debtor, may order the creditor to repay it; and may set aside, either wholly or in part, or revise, or alter, any security given or agreement made in respect of money lent by the money-lender, and if the money-lender has parted with the security may order him to indemnify the borrower or other person sued. interest excessive: transaction harsh and unconscionable. In Wilton v. Osborne (b), which was the first reported Wilton v. case decided under the Act, Ridley, J., after consultation orne' with several other Judges (c), held that in order to entitle the borrower to relief it was necessary that the transaction should be such that a Court of Equity would relieve against it on the ground of its being harsh and unconscionable. This result was arrived at by construing the words "harsh and unconscionable" as expressive of the grounds upon which Courts of Equity before the Act would have granted relief, and by reading the words "or otherwise such that a Court of Equity would give relief" as merely added in order to give completeness to the definition. (J) 1901 2 K. B. 110. (c) So stated by Chaxnell, J., in Barnett v. Corunna, The Times, 16th June, 1902. Sect. 1, Sub-sect. (1). Overruled by In re A Debtor. Principle of Act stated by Vaughan Williams, ...
