Mr.Frank, a foreman supervising 43 employees, was asked by his secretary to sign a form requesting additional supplies needed on the factory floor.He was not careless when he examined the form, but his secretary had cleverly arranged the signature line so that instead of signing a request for supplies, he signed a cheque payable to his secretary.What plea, if any, would be used to defend against her action on the cheque?
A)Non est factum
B)Mistake
C)Illegality of object
D)Rescission
E)Rectification

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Non est factum is a defense that can be used when a party signs a document under the mistaken belief that it is something else entirely. In this case, Mr. Frank did not intend to sign a cheque payable to his secretary and believed he was signing a form requesting additional supplies. As such, he could argue that he signed under a mistake of fact and did not have the intention to sign a cheque. Non est factum can be a complete defense to a claim for payment on the cheque.

MrFrank, a Foreman Supervising 43 Employees, Was Asked by His