[2005] 8 CLJ 113
The defendant elected not to call any evidence when the evidential burden of proof had shifted to her. The defendant’s argument that she had nothing at all to do with the transactions and that she had no knowledge of them seemed absurd since the remisier responsible for conducting the transactions in her account was her husband. The defendant was estopped from denying that the transactions were properly carried out. She had never protested when all the contract notes, contra statement and monthly statement were sent to her address. The defendant was also estopped from denying the authority of the transactions as she failed to notify plaintiff of errors or discrepancies as provided in the contract notes, contra and monthly statements more so when the remisier was her husband. The fact that defendant was allowed to trade above any initial trading limit was no defence to the claim. The increase in the trading limit without any additional security was to the detriment of the plaintiff not the defendant.