The plaintiff corporation, operated by the son of the personal defendant, brought an action to recover funds advanced to the personal defendant and his company over several years.
The parties had signed an agreement acknowledging the debt, setting an interest rate, and promising security via mortgages on the personal defendant's properties.
The personal defendant raised the defence of non est factum, claiming he did not understand the agreement.
The court rejected this defence, finding the personal defendant was an experienced businessman who either understood the agreement or was careless in signing it.
The court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the proven advances and equipment damages, awarded prejudgment interest at a reduced rate of 3.5%, and declared that the plaintiff held an equitable mortgage on the personal defendant's properties.
