Reference no: EM132488789

The younger Mr. Gill was fluent in English and a sophisticated businessman who had worked in a credit union for a number of years as well as managing his father's berry farm. To take advantage of a business opportunity, he arranged with the Royal Bank to borrow $87,000. During the negotiations, it became clear that he could get a more favourable rate of interest if his father guaranteed the loan. In fact, the son had done a considerable amount of banking on behalf of his father who was also a customer of the same bank. The elder Mr. Gill could not read, write or speak English and relied on his son in all his business dealings. The documents were prepared and the son brought his father to the bank to sign. At no time did he explain to his father that he was signing a personal guarantee and the evidence is clear that the father had no idea what he was signing other than it was a document associated with a loan transaction. Mr. Gill exercised implicit faith in his son's handling of his business affairs. Mr. Gill, junior, on the other hand was so excited about the deal that he apparently never explained the nature of the document to his father. It is clear in this situation that at no time was there any misrepresentation to the father or the son on the part of the bank. When the loan was defaulted, the bank turned to the father for payment. Explain the arguments of the father and the bank as to whether Mr. Gill, senior, should be held responsible for this debt and the likely outcome