Facts of the Case
- A document is addressed to Mr. Little and reads:
“Please let the bearer have $7 and oblige.” - It is signed by A and delivered to an unnamed bearer.
- The issue is whether this qualifies as a bill of exchange under Indian law.
Issues in the Case
- Does this document contain an unconditional order to pay?
- Is the phrase “please… and oblige” legally enforceable as a directive or simply a request?
- Does the document meet the statutory definition of a bill of exchange?
Principles Associated With It
- Under Section 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a bill of exchange must:
- Be in writing
- Contain an unconditional order to pay
- Be signed by the maker (drawer)
- Direct a certain person (drawee) to pay
- Be payable to a certain person or bearer
- The use of words like “please” and “oblige” make the tone polite and optional, rather than an unconditional command.
- A bill of exchange must contain a clear directive, not a request or entreaty.
Judgement
- The document uses language that implies a request, not a mandatory or unconditional order.
- Therefore, it fails to meet the requirement of an unconditional order to pay under Section 5.
- It does not qualify as a bill of exchange and is thus not enforceable as such under the law.