The main purpose of the principle of non-est-factum is to protect blind, weak or illiterate people who, through no fault of their own, may not be able to read or understand the purpose of the contract they are performing, for fear of being unduly exploited. In Chief Isicheri Udogwu v. Dr. Festus Oki, (1990) 5 NWLR (pt. 153) p. 723; The Court has held that if one party induces another party to enter into a contract on condition that a fact that does not exist withdraws, the party required to do so may claim damages for the deception. An example would be someone who signs the deed at home and thinks that the document they signed is simply a guarantee of someone else`s debt or they are witnessing a will. In this situation, the person signed the document under the false impression of what the document was intended for. This would be a case where non-est factum would be used as a defence to avoid the treaty. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Grievor acted negligently, as this requires that he be able to deal with the matter and make judgments. [9] He decided that Mr.

Ford did not have legal jurisdiction and therefore had no merit. Although not a binding judgment, this example illustrates an application of Petelin v. Cullen (1975), as it represents the necessary level of incompetence and misunderstanding required to shift the heavy burden of the party raising the defence. Mr. „A,” an illiterate from a popular truck company, asked an experienced engineer to fix his truck if it broke down or was spoiled. „B” presented himself to „A” as a qualified engineer with extensive experience in truck repair. In fact, „B” had contacted „C,” who is a trusted friend of „Mr. A”, to act as guarantor for him and also to interpret the contract of repair to be concluded between „Mr. A.” and „B”. „C” read the alleged repair contract on „A”, but did not read the entire contract, which would transfer all trucks from „Mr.

A” to „B” after a period of 6 months. „Mr. A. signed the contract thinking he was performing a contract exclusively for the repair of his truck. After 6 months, „B” sued „Mr. A” for possession on the grounds that „Mr. A.” was bound by the contract he had properly performed. A contract has been defined as an agreement between two or more people that creates mutual legal obligations for the parties to do or not do certain things. „For a contract to become legally valid, certain elements must be present, they constitute the non-factum defence in a warranty contract. However, a party raising the objection of no est factum on the ground that a contract was concluded on the basis of a false statement is required to prove that the false statement affects the nature and character of the document and not only that its content is different from what he thought he was signing; Only then would the defendant be entitled to regard the contract as void on the ground that his spirit had not followed his signature at the time of the conclusion of the contract. See Complete Goods case {above} Defective contract elements refer to factors that may render a contract void or voidable.

These are factors that can make a contract unenforceable. In what follows, we will attempt to examine the defective elements of the contract and their meaning, raising the objection of non-est-factum. Therefore, a party only has to prove that the contract is illegal and does not need to raise the objection of non est factum. Coercion is pressure on one of the contracting parties to conclude the contract. Coercion is the threat of force or actual threat of force against one of the contracting parties. Coercion leads to the nullity of a contract. An example that illiteracy is not enough to invalidate a contract concerns a real estate broker and developer. The broker wanted several agreements declared invalid because he did not understand the real estate development well enough and did not speak English. Thus, no est factum was considered a defence.

In the present case, the onus is on the defendant to prove his defence on the basis of the conditions that must be met in order to be used as a non-est factum defence. Non est factum (Latin for „it is not [my] act”) is a defence in contract law that allows a signatory party to evade performance of an agreement „that is fundamentally different from what it intended to perform or sign.” [1] A no est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake without knowing its meaning. A plea obtained would result in the nullity of the contract from the outset. [2] Application of the principle no est factum to illiterate contracts Although nonest factum is based on a party`s bona fide error in a contract, there is a slight difference between no est factum and error in the strict sense. The difference is that if a document that is not a fact is void and cannot be executed by an innocent third party, a document accidentally signed by fraud is questionable and an innocent third party who pays in good faith can execute it. In Parojcic v. Parojcic {1959}1 All E.R. 1, at p. 3, the Court held that „the effect of coercion on a marriage is the same as on a contract, namely to render it void but voidable”. In general, there is no legal principle to cancel a contract if a party does not fully appreciate and understand the terms of such a contract. The Latin expression non est factum means something like „it is not of my making”. In contract law, a contracting party may invoke the clause when it claims that a contract is invalid because it misunderstood its meaning or nature at the time it was signed.

As such, they should not be liable for the performance of their obligations under the contract. If the opposition is successful, the contract may be declared null and void.