| Return to Contents Letter To The Editor Dear Sir, BOYD V PICKERSGILL & LE CORNU I refer to the summary of the above case at page 104 of the February issue of the Jersey Law Review. As in the case of the article which recently appeared in the Business Brief, your reporter, and consequently the review of the case fails to make it clear that my firm’s defence to the allegations by Miss Boyd is that she was advised as to licitation. The preliminary point was decided upon ‘supposed agreed’ facts only for the purpose of that hearing. The summary gives the impression that we are only relying upon prescription as a defence, which is not the case. The pleadings in this matter make it quite clear. I should be most grateful if a correction or further explanation could be included in the next issue of the Review to dispel the impression which your readers may have gained that my firm is relying upon a technical defence. The prescription argument is an additional defence only. Yours faithfully, D.E. LE CORNU 5 – 7, La Motte Street, St. Helier, Jersey, JE2 4SY. |