I am struggling with this one. I've been working on it for a while now and can't seem to figure it out. Any help understanding these would be a great help!
If tom sues for breach of contrac,t and Bill wants to deny that the obligantion was ever created, and the action is in covenant, he would plead:
A: Nul tiel record
B: Non est factum
C: Nil debet
D: Non cepit
I believe it's "A" but I am not positive.
Please can someone help me. These above terms are all a little confusing to me!
Thank you so much!
To determine the correct answer, let's break down each term and its meaning:
A: Nul tiel record - This plea is used when the defendant claims that there is no record of the obligation or contract in question.
B: Non est factum - This plea is used when the defendant claims that the document in question (e.g., contract) is not legally binding because it was a mistake, forgery, or signed under duress.
C: Nil debet - This plea is used when the defendant denies owing any money or having any obligation under the contract.
D: Non cepit - This plea is unrelated to breach of contract actions. It is used in an action of trover, which deals with the wrongful taking or conversion of personal property.
Considering the scenario you provided, where Bill wants to deny that the obligation was ever created, it seems that option B: Non est factum might be the most appropriate choice. It aligns with Bill's intention to argue that the contract is not legally binding.
However, it is always a good idea to consult legal resources or seek advice from a legal professional to get accurate and reliable answers when it comes to legal matters.