Can my father claim his house back?
Dear Mirror Lawyer, My father signed an agreement which stated that he was selling his only house to a purchaser for an amount less than the market value of the property. My father later explained that the discussions with the purchaser focused on leasing the property for just 10years and that he did not read the document before signing.
Advertisement
He also stated he did not intend to sell outright his only house.
Can my father explain the true facts and claim his property back?
Nana Kwame Fosu, Kumasi.
Dear Fosu,
Any person of full age and understanding can enter into any contract for the sale of his self-acquired property to a potential purchaser.
The law will not permit an educated person who appends his signature on a document to turn round and say that he made a mistake or did not intend to sign the document he authored.
An exception will be where a party has been misled into executing a deed or signing a document of a class and character different from that which he intended to execute or sign.
The general rule, therefore, is that a man is estopped by his deed, and although there is not such estoppel in the case of an ordinary signed document, a party of full age and understanding is normally bound by his signature to a document, whether he reads or understands it or not.
In the case of Wilson v Brobbey [1974] 1 GLR 250, the defendant was sued to recover the value of goods credited to him by the plaintiff.
The defendant had signed an invoice acknowledging receipt of the goods and the value.
Although the defendant, who was literate, admitted signing the document, he contended that he did so as a guarantor on behalf of one A. to whom the goods were supplied and not as a purchaser and that he in fact did not read the document.
Defendant also requested to be permitted to lead oral evidence to contradict the terms of the invoice.
The court held citing with approval an English case of Gallie v. Lee [1969] 2 Ch. 17 at p. 36, C.A. as follows:
"Whenever a man of full age and understanding, who can read and write, signs a legal document which is put before him for signature — by which I mean a document which, it is apparent on the face of it, is intended to have legal consequences — then, if he does not take the trouble to read it but signs it as it is, relying on the word of another as to its character or contents or effect, he cannot be heard to say that it is not his document."
Thus, negligence on the part of a party signing a document does not affect his liability in any way.
The general rule is also that where parties have embodied the terms of their contract in a written document oral evidence will be inadmissible to add to, vary, explain, subtract from or contradict the terms of the written instrument.