1938 Supreme(SC) 39
Privy Council At Gibraltar
Sir Lancelot Sanderson, Lord Porter, Justice Lord Atkin, JJ.
Pyrmont Ltd. and another -Appellant
Versus
Lucila Schott -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 43 of 1937
Decided On : 01-12-1938
Wm. A. Crump and Sons., Perowne, Alder , S. Chapman, H.P. Hallett, J.C. Lawrence, H.S. Willinck
An obligation to pay a foreign unit of account is fulfilled by tendering whatever is legal tender and legal currency in the foreign country at the date of repayment, as regulated by the municipal law of that foreign country.
Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Foreign Currency - Unit of Account - Obligation to pay a foreign unit of account - Performance of such an obligation is regulated by the municipal law of the country whose unit of account is in question - Payment must be made in whatever is legal tender and legal currency in the foreign country at the date of repayment.
(B) Currency as Commodity - Where a foreign currency is not legal tender in the jurisdiction where the contract is performed, it is treated as a commodity - The obligation to return such a commodity is determined by the definition of the unit of account in the country of origin.
Facts of the case:
A company borrowed a large sum in a foreign currency from an individual. The loan was executed via a bond with a specified repayment date. The currency involved was not legal tender in the jurisdiction where the contract was performed but was treated as a commodity. Following a change in the foreign country's laws, certain notes of that currency required government authorization to be reintroduced into that country and to be exchangeable for metal; notes without such authorization had a lower value. The borrowers attempted to repay the loan using notes lacking this authorization or via cheques that did not provide such authorization. The lender refused these tenders, insisting on the return of the actual units of account.
Findings of Court:
The contract was for the supply and return of a commodity, specifically units of account of a foreign republic. The tender of bank notes that were not units of account (due to the lack of required government authorization) did not fulfill the contractual obligation to return the units of account.
Issues: Whether a contract to repay a sum in a foreign currency, where that currency is treated as a commodity in the place of payment, requires the tender of the foreign unit of account (legal tender) or merely any notes of that currency.
Ratio Decidendi: An obligation to pay a foreign unit of account must be fulfilled by tendering whatever is legal tender and legal currency in the foreign country at the date of repayment. The form in which such payment is to be made is regulated by the municipal law of the country whose unit of account is in question, and what constitutes legal tender depends on the law in force at the time the tender should have been made.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
contract law
-
commercial contracts
-
foreign currency loans
- legal tender and repayment
-
foreign currency loans
-
commercial contracts
Lord Porter:-
The appellant company are incorporated in Gibraltar and carry on business as an investment company. The appellant, John Mackintosh, is a director of that company. In May 1935 the appellants were anxious to borrow a large sum of Spanish pesetas as they did not wish to convert English pounds sterling into that currency, and at that time the respondent had on deposit at Barclays Bank in Gibraltar a credit of over 500,000 pesetas standing in the names of Messrs. Carrara King and Marsh who were trustees of her late husband. The respondent is an old lady 82 years of age, whose business affairs were managed by her nephew one Eugenic Gross. Mr. King, who was a friend of both Mr. Mackintosh and the respondent, having heard that the appellants desired to borrow pesetas approached Mr. Mackintosh and arranged with him that the respondent should lend and the appellants borrow the sum of 500,000 pesetas at 3½ per cent. interest per annum. Accordingly the appellants executed a bond dated 22nd May 1935, whereby they bound themselves to pay the respondent the sum of 500,000 pesetas on 22nd May 1936, and meanwhile to pay interest at 3½ per cent. per annum by half-yearly instalments on 22nd November 1935, and the 22nd May 1936. Upon the execution of the bond, Mr. Pons, the accountant employed by the trustees, prepared and filled in a cheque for 500,000 pesetas drawn on Barclays Bank, Gibraltar, and the cheque was signed by the trustees in whose name the credit stood. The cheque was then handed to Mr. Mackintosh or to his secretary, Mr. Caston, and paid into the appellants' account at Barclays Bank. From time to time the appellants drew cheques varying in value between 6000 and 70,000 pesetas upon this account and the whole amount was so withdrawn by the appellants before the end of the year 1935. Meanwhile on 22nd November 1935, the half-year's interest was duly paid.
Before and up to 1898 Spanish peseta coinage was legal tender in Gibraltar, but by an Order in Council of 9th August of that year, sterling money of Great Britain became the only legal tender subject to certain exceptions not material to the present case. Nevertheless pesetas were in frequent use and were regularly given and taken as payment in commercial transactions in Gibraltar. The peseta was and remains the unit of Spanish currency. It is common ground that at all material times gold coins without limit and silver coins of 5 pesetas alone were legal tender in Spain. It is true that the Bank of Spain were authorized to issue peseta notes and that for certain purposes, e. g. the payment of sums due to the Government, those notes must be accepted, hut in ordinary transactions between individuals they could be refused. In practice, of course, they were accepted inasmuch as the Bank of Spain were under an obligation to meet their notes by providing gold or silver on presentation, but if a strict fulfilment of his obligations were insisted on, a borrower would not fulfil them by tendering notes - he must furnish gold or silver coin. In Gibraltar pesetas whether in the form of gold or silver or notes were not currency at all, they were a commodity which could be bought or sold like any other commodity. Up to March 1936, however peseta notes were commonly given and accepted both in Spain and in Gibraltar as the equivalent in value of the coinage they represented. By a Spanish decree of 1930 the export of silver from Spain was prohibited. Even before 1936, regulations had been made prohibiting the exportation of bank notes in excess of 5000 pesetas and on 16th March 1936 the Spanish Government, apparently perturbed by the fact that refugees leaving Spain were found to be taking with them a large number of peseta notes, enacted a further decree under which travellers were prohibited from exporting any notes of the Bank of Spain unless accompanied by an authorization called a "guia". These "guias"were issued by the Customs authorities who were required to send a daily repor