Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Taylor V Chester - 1

    Uploaded by

    Brena Gala
    218 views1 page
    P met D, a prostitute, who provided £20 worth of wine and food in exchange for a £50 note as security. P later claimed he was entitled to neither the money nor note as the contract was for an illegal purpose. The court ruled that since both parties were at fault for the illegal transaction, based on the principle of in pari delicto, the person currently in possession (D) could keep the contested property (the £50 note). The plaintiff (P) could not seek recovery from the courts since his only argument relied on the illegality of the transaction he participated in.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Taylor v Chester_1.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    P met D, a prostitute, who provided £20 worth of wine and food in exchange for a £50 note as security. P later claimed he was entitled to neither the money nor note as the contract was for an illegal purpose. The court ruled that since both parties were at fault for the illegal transaction, based on the principle of in pari delicto, the person currently in possession (D) could keep the contested property (the £50 note). The plaintiff (P) could not seek recovery from the courts since his only argument relied on the illegality of the transaction he participated in.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    218 views1 page

    Taylor V Chester - 1

    Uploaded by

    Brena Gala
    P met D, a prostitute, who provided £20 worth of wine and food in exchange for a £50 note as security. P later claimed he was entitled to neither the money nor note as the contract was for an illegal purpose. The court ruled that since both parties were at fault for the illegal transaction, based on the principle of in pari delicto, the person currently in possession (D) could keep the contested property (the £50 note). The plaintiff (P) could not seek recovery from the courts since his only argument relied on the illegality of the transaction he participated in.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TAYLOR V CHESTER (1869)

    Facts:
    P met D, who was working in a brothel. As security against the £20 of wine and food P
    received from D, he gave her a £50 note. P claimed that D was not entitled to either the £20
    or the £50 as the contract entered into was of an illegal nature.

    Issues:
    1. Whether a person recover money that was used or intended to be used for an immoral
    transaction to which he is a party
    Decision:
    On the basis of the principle of in pari delicto, potior est conditio possidentis (meaning,
    “when both parties are at fault, the person in possession of the contested property keeps it”),
    P cannot recover. When the only argument that a plaintiff can raise rest on the illegality of the
    transaction to which he is a party, he cannot seek recourse from the courts as he is coming to
    the court with dirty hands.

    You might also like