In The Goods Of Clark Case Study

In the Goods of Clark (1973)

The testator being close to death, requested the vicar to write out a will and on his behalf and to sign it. The vicar signed his own name “ signed on behalf of the testator, in his presence and by his direction, by me, C.F.Furlong, Vicar of Warfield, Berks.’ This was held to be valid.

The problem in this provision is that the Parliament actually allows some other person to sign on behalf of the testator with the condition of it must be under the direction and instructions of the testator, but they did not prohibit the beneficiary or the witness to sign on behalf or assist the testator to sign. The case of Barrett v Bem (2012) which concerns about the facts that the testator had been too unwell to sign the will and it was the sister, Anne that had signed on it.

The Court of Appeal held that the statutory requirement in section 9(a) that the direction to sign connotes a more active role from the testator than a mere ‘acknowledgement’ of an earlier signature under section 9(c). Per Lewinson LJ at paragraph 36 in the case of Barrett v Bem(2012):” The court should not find that a will has been signed by a third party at the direction of the testator unless there is positive and discernible communication (which may be verbal or non-verbal) by the testator that he wishes the will to be signed on his behalf by the third party. On the facts, there was insufficient evidence to find such “direction”.

Lewinson LJ remarked : “I echo the judge’s view that it is plainly undesirable that beneficiaries should be permitted to execute a will in their own favour in any capacity; and that Parliament should consider a change in the law to ensure that this cannot happen in the future”.

In my opinion, I strongly agree ...

... middle of paper ...

...g the will of the Testator so long that they signed on it regardless what did they signed-Wilson v Beddard(1841) . Though we are not told as to what amounts to signature in Section 9 but we were only told that the signature must be intended by the testator in order to give effect to the will. However it is through common law that we can know what amounts to signature. The leading case of HINDMARSH v CHARLTON per Lord Campbell L.C. says that there must be the name or some mark that is intended to represent the name. Unfortunately this was sometimes being regard as too wide the definition and thus creating a few conflicting cases such as Re Chalcraft and Re Colling.

Broader view

In the Goods of Chalcraft

The testatrix was dying and signed a codicil “E.Chal” but was unable to complete her signature. It was held that the signature was sufficient because she wrote