Yerkey V Jones: The principle expressed by Dixon JM Jones intended to purchase a poultry farm for £3,300, provided Mr Jones obtained a second mortgage of his wife for £1,000. the creditors' solicitor prepared the mortgage and Mr Jones persuaded his wife to sign and made him liable for the £1,000 payment. Mr. Jones failed in his poultry business. Ms Jones sought equitable relief, claiming she did not understand the nature of the transaction and had not received independent legal advice. Supreme Court of South Australia: On grounds of undue influence, misrepresentation and unilateral mistake, Ms Jones was entitled to equitable relief from the guarantee she had signed. Yerkey appealed. Before the High Court: Mrs Jones vouched for her husband because he had persuaded her and she did not understand the effects of the transaction. Dixon J expressed this principle:1. It is the responsibility of the creditor if he relies on the husband to get the wife to be their guarantor without dealing directly with her, knowing that the principal debtor (the husband) can misrepresent the true nature of the transaction and obtain the marry. be a guarantor by exercising undue influence over her.2.i) The one guaranteeing the loan is the wife of the main applicant (husband) of the loan.ii) The guarantor (wife) decided to do so without any expectation to derive any benefit from the transaction (on a voluntary basis). iii) That the guarantor would be asked to do so by the husband who is the principal applicant. In the sense that the lender must be considered as having understood that as a wife, the guarantor places a lot of trust in her husband in business matters and therefore as having understood that the husband can...... middle paper ...... terms. It cannot therefore cover the entire area of ​​reprehensible behavior. Ms. Garcia's professional status does not qualify her under the Amadio principle. The only principle which best suits it is that expressed by Dixon J in Yerkey v Jones. Because it's still good law in Australia and it applies to New South Wales. For the following reason: Mrs. Garcia relied on her husband for all financial matters. By assuring him that “if the money is not there, the gold is there”. The lack of independent advice makes the execution of the transaction impermissible, even if there is no actual undue influence. Ms. Garcia had not obtained any benefit under the law. the transaction. The importance of this principle lies in the relationship of trust that exists between the guarantor and the principal debtor, and in the lender's knowledge of this relationship...