This is a common myth that parties can backdate a commercial or technological contract to ensure it covers events that occur before the date of signing. However, backdating a contract in this way can be a criminal offense and is often completely avoidable, as the same effect can be achieved through careful legal drafting. In summary, Ting Siew May is a judgment that has clearly established the basis on which the defence of illegality is based both at common law and in law. It is also now clear that the principle of trust does not apply if the contract is void and unenforceable from the outset because of the illegality of the common law. However, it is hoped that the above-mentioned issues will be further developed in future cases once they have been brought to justice. As part of his ethics, the lawyer must keep in mind that a corporate responsibility is imposed on him when drafting backdated contracts. Therefore, lawyers must act as compliance observers to ensure that no such criminal act is involved in a transaction that could jeopardize their professional career. Therefore, it is important to note that the backdating of a contract can be considered a violation of professional conduct and can lead to criminal liability. There is therefore no legal illegality in the present case. This maxim literally means “now for then”. It applies essentially to court decisions that have been backdated, and it is a form of official anti-dating.

From the examples above, it is clear that, depending on your property, anti-dating is illegitimate and could potentially mislead a third party. To understand the application of this maxim in official legal proceedings, we can take an example. The court found that the nature of the unlawful act that the defendants intended to commit was not trivial. The main political objective of the October 5 announcement was to limit the amount of residential home loans in order to promote the stability of the real estate market. The part of the 5 October communication that the defendants wished to infringe was directly related to their main political objective. The court also concluded that the illegal objective was not too far removed from the option. There was an open step in implementing the respondents` illegal intent in the option itself. Finally, the CA concluded that the “principle of trust” was narrow in scope and was normally invoked only by a party seeking reimbursement of the value of what had been transferred under an illegal contract. In addition, the CA clarified that once a contract has been found to be void and unenforceable at common law, it does not matter whether the illegality had to be invoked to assert its claim. The consequence of this clarification is to reduce the importance of the technical functioning of the principle of trust in the context of illegality and to encourage the courts to deal directly with the issues underlying the case, as difficult as it may be to identify political objections in each individual case.

It remains to be seen whether the Court could apply the same informed approach to the Reliance Rule in Tinsley v. Milligan, the fair counterpart of the Reliance principle. The Australian case of Equuscorp Pty Ltd (formerly Equus Financial Services Ltd) v. Ian Alexander Haxton et al. [2012] HCA 7 is believed to illustrate this point. At Equuscorp, respondents had invested in tax blueberry growing programs and taken out a loan from Rural. However, Rural had not issued a prospectus when the systems were announced, which violated section 170(1) of the Australian Companies Code. The loan agreements were found to be unenforceable on grounds of illegality and the question was whether Equuscorp, to which the loan agreements had been assigned, was entitled to repayment for failure to mention the consideration. The Australian High Court rejected by majority (Judge Heydon disagreed) because the defendants were the class of persons who wanted to be protected by section 170(1) of the Companies Code. The content of this article is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal advice. You should consult a lawyer about your particular situation and any specific legal questions you may have. Essentially, the CA was interested in the content of the transaction, not its form.

Structuring the sale in a way that “escapes the law” would not be tolerated, as it would violate the principle that “the court will not help for reasons of public order. a party who benefits from his or her own misconduct.” Thus, the broad category of contracts concluded with the intention of committing an unlawful act played “an important `bridging function` to ensure that a party who has entered into a contract with the intention of violating a legal provision (subject to the principle of proportionality) is not entitled to perform that contract”. Note that caution is advised, as courts often find it difficult to distinguish between legitimate and inappropriate anti-dating. Determining whether anti-dating is legitimate is complicated by ambiguous recordings, limited memories, and trust in the memories or statements of others. Sometimes fabricated dating can be harmless if the rights of third parties are not affected and no law is violated, and sometimes the backdating of monuments can be problematic if it leads a court to believe that the document was executed on the day the event occurred. In such cases, a court could invalidate the entire agreement. Antidating can be defined as the practice of marking a document, it can be a contract, a check, etc. with a date earlier than what it should be.

In many jurisdictions, this practice is considered illegal and fraudulent, depending on the nature of the document and its ultimate effect. 3. Does either party receive a special advantage or avoid a disadvantage due to backdating? As in Ewan McKendrick, Contract Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 7th ed., 2007) p. 1. 331 to 332 comments: “When deciding whether a particular contract is `contrary to public policy`, the courts cannot hide under the argument that they are merely implementing Parliament`s intention. They must develop their own ideas of public order. The evolution of public policy norms has been observed in Jack Beatson, Andrew Burrows and John Cartwright, Anson`s Law of Contract (Oxford University Press, 29th ed., 2010) at p. 384, where it is noted that the principles of cohabitation transactions have changed over time, as have the principles of litigation financing. Michael Furmston, Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston`s Law of Contract (Oxford University Press, 16th Ed, 2012) comments on P. 457 that this is due to the fact that the law of illegality under the common law arose from the principle that contracts that harm society are not tolerated. The U.S.

vs. Wilson case (4th Circuit 1997) involved an attempt by a lawyer to hide his client`s assets from the IRS, and he attempted to do so by anti-dating promissory notes to give the impression that his client was required to pay certain amounts received unconditionally. The federal jury, after reviewing the facts and circumstances and considering all the evidence presented, found the defendant guilty on the grounds that he had attempted to deceive the management of internal revenues and that he had deliberately attempted to circumvent and violate the tax penalties. In another example, imagine a landlord who doesn`t want to rent an apartment to a minority applicant. The landlord finds a non-minority tenant and goes back to that tenant`s signature to affirm that the non-minority tenant rented the apartment prior to the minority applicant`s application. This backdating may be illegal because it is intended to mislead the minority claimant and facilitate unlawful discrimination against the owner. In general, the backating of an agreement is legitimate if it accurately recalls an unwritten agreement between the parties. .