Acknowledgment of liability can extend limitation where a letter admits a balance due and indicates an intention to pay.
An acknowledgment of liability can save limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act even where no exact sum is admitted, if the writing clearly accepts that money is due and expresses an intention to pay the balance after accounts are verified. A letter stating that goods were purchased and not fully paid for was treated as sufficient acknowledgment and promise to pay. The document also explains that a letter said to have been written by a pleader on a client's instructions may be attributed to the client where surrounding evidence supports that inference and no contrary proof is produced. Such a letter is admissible against the client.
Issues: (i) whether the letter relied upon by the plaintiff amounted to an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to save limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act; (ii) whether the letter was proved to have been written under the appellant's instructions.
Issue (i): whether the letter relied upon by the plaintiff amounted to an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to save limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act.
Analysis: The letter contained an admission that goods had been purchased and not fully paid for, and it further expressed an intention to pay whatever balance might be found due after verification of accounts. An acknowledgment need not specify an exact sum due; a clear admission that money is owing, coupled with a promise to pay the balance, is sufficient to attract Section 19 and extend limitation.
Conclusion: The letter amounted to an acknowledgment of liability and a promise to pay, and limitation was saved.
Issue (ii): whether the letter was proved to have been written under the appellant's instructions.
Analysis: The surrounding evidence, including the husband's statement, the prior version given before the Township Officer, and the appellant's own failure to deny the connection with the letter when first examined, supported the inference that the letter was issued on her behalf. In the absence of the pleader being called to deny instructions, the presumption that a letter written by a member of the Bar as instructed by a client was displaced by no evidence.
Conclusion: The letter was properly treated as the appellant's letter and was admissible against her.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both grounds, and the decree against the appellant was maintained with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: An acknowledgment for limitation purposes is sufficient if it admits liability and indicates that a balance may be payable, even without admitting a precise amount, and a letter purporting to be written by a pleader on a client's behalf is attributable to the client unless the contrary is proved.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
