PERSONAL LIABILITY OF "DIRECTORS" OF NON-EXISTENT COMPANIES.
|
|
- Arabella Flowers
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 PERSONAL LIABILITY OF "DIRECTORS" OF NON-EXISTENT COMPANIES. In Black v. Smallwood and Cooper1 the plaintiffs contracted to sell their land to a company called Western Suburbs Holdings Pty. Ltd. The defendants signed the contract on behalf of the company as directors. At the time that the contract was signed Western Suburbs Holdings Pty. Ltd. had not been incorporated, and was not incorporated until more than six weeks later. The plaintiffs brought a suit for specific performance against the defendants, who denied that any contract had been made between the plaintiffs and themselves. Jacobs J. held that the defendants could not say that they did not intend to assume any personal liability and that the contract must be regarded as between the plaintiffs and the two defendants; he therefore granted a decree of specific performance. It is submitted with respect that this decision was wrong and that there was no cqntract between the plaintiffs and the defendants. In Kelner v. Baxter2 three persons who signed a contract of sale on behalf of a company which had not yet been incorporated were held to be personally liable on the contract. The Court of Common Pleas (Erle C.J., Willes, Byles, and Keating JJ.) held that where a person purports to sign a contract as an agent, but has no principal in existence at the time, he is personally liable on the contract. However, in Kelner v. Baxter the defendants signed the contract as agents of the non-existent company, and not as directors like the defendants in Black v. Smallwood and Cooper. The importance of this distinction is shown by the case of Newborne v. Sensolid> where the plaintiff signed a contract as director of a company which had not yet been incorporated: it was held that he could not sue on the contract personally. The plaintiff in Newborne v. Sensolid, like the defendants in Bldck v. Smallwood and Cooper, signed not as agent of the nonexistent company, but as the company itself; and the company not then being in existence, the contract was nugatory. Jacobs J. thought that it was not open to him not to follow the decision of the Court of Appeal in Newborne u. Sensolid, but distinguished the facts in Newborne u. Sensolid from those in the case before him on the grounds that in Newborne u. Sensolid the person who 1 [I9641 N.S.W.R (1866) L.R. 2 C.P [1954] 1 Q.B. 45.
2 signed on behalf of the non-existent company was the plaintiff, whereas the persons who signed on behalf of the non-existent company in the case before him were the defendants. Jacobs J. denied that it made any difference whether a person who signed a contract on behalf of a non-existent company did so as an agent or as a director; he held that the true distinction between Kelner v. Baxter and Newborne v. Sensolid was that in Kelner v. Baxter the persons who signed on behalf of the non-existent company were the defendants, while in Newborne v. Sensolid it was the plaintiff who signed on behalf of the non-existent company, and said:-4 "Now, the reasons which could lead to such a conclusion could be various and it may be true to say that there is a body of reasoning in the judgment of Parker J., and in the judgments in the Court of Appeal which would lead to the conclusion that there would be no difference whether the person signing be plaintiff or defendant. With great respect to their Lordships I cannot accept that reasoning; I do not think that Kelner v. Baxter was simply a case where, on a true construction of the contract, the agent intended a personal liability, nor do I think that, generally speaking in the English Law, a difference in legal liability arises depending upon whether a written contract is expressed in the form: "A" as agent for "X" Limited, and "X" Limited with a subscription "A" or "A director". It must be borne in mind that, except in special circumstances, a person contracting as agent is presumed not to intend to make himself personally liable. In my view a distinction must be drawn between the position of a plaintiff and the position of a defendant. Where the person who signed as agent is the plaintiff, the defendant is entitled to say: 'I never contracted with you, I intended to contract with "X" Limited and I cannot have a different contracting party forced upon me'. On the other hand, when the agent is sued on the contract, it seems to me that the other contracting party is entitled to say: 'Since you contracted on behalf of a fictitious principal you must be presumed to have intended to make yourself personally liable, otherwise our solemn dealings were a farce; even though I intended to contract with a non-existent person, I can elect to treat the contract as one with you personally'. It is true that if it is made clear that the agent accepts no personal liability, whether or not the company is in existence, 4 [I9641 N.S.W.R. 1121, at 1123.
3 then there will be no room for the imposition of a personal liability upon him. Such a case would be a rare one, but the possibility of such case points to the principle, which in my view, is applicable, namely the principle of estoppel. The defendant in such case cannot be heard to say that he did not intend to assume any personal liability, when the effect of such an assertion would be to destroy the possibility of the f i i contract and relationship which the other party intended." It is submitted that Jacobs J. was wrong both in his reasoning and on the authorities. In Newborne v. Sensolid Parker J. made it clear that he distinguished that case from Kelner v. Baxter on the grounds that the defendants in Kelner v. Baxter signed as agents, whereas the plaintiff in Newborne v. Sensolid signed as a director, and said:--6 "Mr. Pearl, however, argued, and it was an argument which impressed me, that the principle in those cases to which I have referred had no application here. In those cases there was an agent undertaking to do certain things himself as agent for somebody else. In the present case, however, unlike Kelner v. Baxter and Co. v. Vigers Brothers, there is no signature by anybody at all as agent. To bring this case within the principles of those cases the contract, it seems to me, would have to read: 'I, Leopold Newborne, on behalf of the company agree to sell, and have sold to you...' and so on, and signed 'Leopold Newborne, by authority of and as agent for the company'. In other words, the agent would be contracting to do certain things, albeit as agent.... But that is not this case." The judgment of Parker J. was expressly approved by the Court of Appeal (Lord Goddard C.J., Morris and Romer L.JJ.), and Lord Goddard C. J. said :-6 "What we cannot find in this case is that Mr. Newborne ever purported to contract to sell either as agent or as principal. The contract was one which he was making for the company, and although Mr. Diplock has argued that in signing as he did Mr. Newborne must have signed as agent, since the company could only contract through agents, that was not really the true position.... It is a case in which the company is contracting and the company's contract is authenticated by the signature of I 5 [1954] 1 Q.B. 45, at Ibid., at 51.
4 one of the directors. This contract purports to be a contract by the company; it does not purport to be a contract by Mr. Newborne." In support of his decision Jacobs J. cited Summergreene v. Parker7 and Kings Norton Metal Co. v. Eldridge.8 It is submitted that these cases do not in any way assist his argument, and are, indeed, irrelevant. In Summergreene v. Parker the plaintiff, an estate agent, was employed by the defendant to sell her business on commission. He obtained an offer, which the defendant accepted, from two persons who purported to be acting as trustees of a company "to be formed". The defendants refused to complete the sale and the company was never formed. The plaintiff sued for his commission. The Full Court of New South Wales, reversing the decision of the trial judge, held that on the principle of Kelner v. Baxter the two "trustees" were liable on the contract and that therefore the plaintiff could recover his commission. The High Court (Latham C.J., Williams, Webb and Fullagar JJ.) reversed this decision on the ground that the offer made by the "trustees" was too uncertain to constitute a binding contract. The question of the personal liability of the "trustees" under the rule in Kelner v. Baxter did not therefore arise, and Fullagar J. said:-d "I do not myself think that Kelner u. Baxter... affords any assistance in the present case." The case of Kings Norton Metal Co. v. Eldridge is of even less assistance. In that case the plaintiffs sold goods to a rogue who was trading under the assumed name of Hallam & Co. and who resold them to the defendants, who bought them bona fide and for value. The Court of Appeal held that as there was no real firm called Hallam & Co. known to the plaintiffs, the contract was not void for mistake but merely voidable for fraud. The question of agency did not arise. Jacobs J., in the course of his judgment, based the personal liability of the defendants on the principle of estoppel. However, in Kelner u. Baxter, the Court of Common Pleas (Erle C.J., Willes, Byles, and Keating JJ.) made no reference to the principle of estoppel, and decided the case on the ground that when an agent contracts on behalf of a non-existent principal he is personally liable; while in Newborne v. Sensolid Parker J. expressly denied that Kelner v. Baxter was decided on the basis of estoppel and said:-lo 7 (1950) 80 Commonwealth L.R (1897) 14 Times L.R (1950) 80 Commonwealth L.R. 304, at [I Q.B. 45, at 47.
5 "... it is plain that this principle, that the agent is liable, is not based on breach of warranty of authority, because, as I have said, the principal is not in existence; it is not bksed on any question of estoppel; but it is based on this principle, that it is only by holding him personally liable that any effect can be gven to the contract." And even if the decision in Kelner v. Baxter had been based on estoppel, it is submitted that that prinicple would have been of no assistance to Jacobs J. in Black v. Smallwood and Cooper. The only representation made by the defendants in that case which could possibly ground an estoppel was that a company existed, so that they were estopped from denying the existence of the company: but the company in fact did not exist and estoppel cannot create a non-existent entity, nor can it create a liability. A more promising line of attack would be one based on breach of an implied warranty, although this would involve differing from Newborne v. Sensolid, which Jacobs J. does not overtly profess to do: even then, however, the only remedy available to the plaintiffs would have been damages, not specific performance. Support for the proposition of Jacobs J. that a distinction must be drawn between the position of a plaintiff and that of a defendant can be found in the case of Hollman v. Pullin.ll In that case the defendant agreed to work as a medical officer for a medical association, one of the terms of the agreement being that on leaving the service of the association he could not practice as a medical practitioner within a certain area. The plaintiff signed the agreement on behalf of the association which, at the time he signed the document, had not yet been formed. When the defendant later left the association's employment and entered into practice within the prohibited area, the plaintiff sued for an injunction. Vaughan Williams J. dismissed the action and said:--l2 "It must not be assumed that the question admits of the same solution whether the supposed agent is suing or is being sued. It might well be that an agent who without any real principal induced another to accept a contract might find it difficult upon the facts to escape personal liability as himself the contractor, and yet if he himself were endeavouring to sue on the same contract he might find the difficulty reversed when he endeavoured 11 (1884) Cab. & E Zbid.. at 257.
6 to enforce it against one who denied that he ever entered into such relation with him personally." In Hollman v. Pullin, however, the plaintiff signed as agent, not as director; moreover, it was a case at first instance, and the view expressed by Vaughan Williams J. is directly contrary to that expressed by Parker J. in Newborne v. Sensolid in a judgment expressly approved by the Court of Appeal: it is also directly contrary to the later decision of Pickford J. in Harper 3 Co. v. Vigers Brothers,18 a decision which was approved by Parker J. in Newborne v. Sensolid. In that case the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendants, professing to act "as agents": they did not in fact have any principals, and it was held that they could sue on the contract themselves. Furthermore, it is submitted, Hollman v. Pullin is of dubious authority as it appears to be based on a complete misconception of Kelner v. Baxter. In Hollman v. Pullin Vaughan Williams J. said :-" "... [it was] maintained... that it was a general principle of law that wherever an agent or a representative affected to conclude a contract on behalf of an alleged principal, and no such principal existed, the agent was in law himself the contracting party; and for this [was] cited the authority of Kelner v. Baxter. There is however no authority for laying down such a proposition as a rule of law." With respect to the learned judge it is precisely this proposition which was laid down by the Court of Common Pleas in Kelner v. Baxter. In that case Erle C.J. said:-l5 "The cases referred to in the course of the argument fully bear out the proposition that, where a contract is signed by one who professes to be signing 'as agent', but who has no principal existing at the time, and the contract would be altogether inoperative unless binding upon the person who signed it, he is bound thereby." And Byles J. said:-16 "The true rule, however, is... that persons who contract as agents are generally personally responsible where there is no other person who is responsible as principal." In Black v. Smallwood and Cooper Jacobs J. expressed the view that the question before him was one of considerable general import- 1s [I K.B (1884) Cab. & E. 254, at (1866) L.R. 2 C.P. 174, at Zbid., at 185.
7 ance. It is submitted that its practical importance is probably restricted to cases where the remedy of specific performance is available: for even although "directors" of non-existent companies who sign as directors and not as agents are not liable personally on the contract, nor for breach of warranty of authority, yet they may be liable in damages either for fraud or for negligent misrepresentation under the principle in Hedley Byrne v. Heller.17 W. E. D. DAVIES." 17 [1963] 3 Weekly L.R. 101, [1963] 2 All E.R LL.B. (Wales), of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law; Senior Lecturer in Contract and Mercantile Law, University of Western Australia,
Focus of this lecture:
PRBL004 Corporations Law Lecture 5 Corporate Liability (Agency) & Pre-registration Dealings Jeswynn Yogaratnam Room: 39.3.72; Yellow 1 (3rd flr) Telephone: (08) 8946 6085 Email: jeswynn.yogaratnam@cdu.edu.au
More informationTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SIXTY-SECOND REPORT LAW REFORM, COMMITTEE RELATING TO REFORM OF COMPANY LAW RELATING TO PRE-INCORPORATION CONTRACTS.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA SIXTY-SECOND REPORT of the LAW REFORM, COMMITTEE of SOUTH AUSTRALIA THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL RELATING TO REFORM OF COMPANY LAW RELATING TO PRE-INCORPORATION CONTRACTS The Law Reform Committee
More informationARTICLES PRE-INCORPORATION CONTRACTS AND THE NATIONAL COMPANIES CODE: WHAT DOES SECTION 81 REALLY MEAN? Introduction
J P Hambrook* ARTICLES PRE-INCORPORATION CONTRACTS AND THE NATIONAL COMPANIES CODE: WHAT DOES SECTION 81 REALLY MEAN? Introduction From 1 July 1982, with the exception of the Northern Territory, Australia
More informationNON EST FACTUM SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (Based on Gallie v. Lee and appeals)*
NON EST FACTUM SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (Based on Gallie v. Lee and appeals)* THE COMMON law doctrine of non est factum the plea by which a man sought to be charged in some action or proceeding upon a
More informationNOTE. Diamond v. Graham, the Doctrine of Consideration and Value for a Cheque
No. 3] NOTE Diamond v. Graham, the Doctrine of Consideration and Value for a Cheque Can the payee of a cheque enforce payment against a drawer who pleads absence of consideration on the ground that the
More informationDOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES-EFFECTS AND EXCEPTIONS
CONCEPT DOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES-EFFECTS AND EXCEPTIONS The object clause of the Memorandum of the company contains the object for which the company is formed. An act of the company must not be beyond the
More informationDistillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson. [1971] AC 458 (Privy Council on appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal)
Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson [1971] AC 458 (Privy Council on appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal) The place of a tort (the locus delicti) is the place of the act (or omission)
More informationCONTRACTS AND SALES QUESTION 1
CONTRACTS AND SALES QUESTION Peter responded to an advertisement placed by Della, a dentist, seeking a dental hygienist. After an interview, Della offered Peter the job and said she would either: () pay
More informationEQUITABLE DEFENCES AT COMMON LAW - APPLICATION OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITABLE DEFENCES AT COMMON LAW - APPLICATION OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN NEW SOUTH WALES The decision of the Full Court1 of the New South Wales Supreme Court in the Rutile Case2 will be of interest to
More informationa) The body of law as made by judges through the determination of cases. d) The system of law that emerged following the Norman Conquest in 1066.
1. Who of the following was NOT a proponent of natural law? a) Aristotle b) Jeremy Bentham c) St Augustine d) St Thomas Aquinas 2. The term 'common law' has three different meanings. Which of the following
More informationCOMMENT PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMENT PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IN NEW SOUTH WALES Since the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd,l there has been a good deal of academic and judicial discussion of the operation,
More informationFederal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000
Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Commencement: 1st May 2000 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and all powers
More informationLAW OF CONTRACT (PART II) Shanila H. Gunawardena LL.B. (Hons.) (Colombo) Attorney-at-Law, CTA (CASL)
LAW OF CONTRACT (PART II) Shanila H. Gunawardena LL.B. (Hons.) (Colombo) Attorney-at-Law, CTA (CASL) 06-08-2017 (2) AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES -ACCEPTANCE- Postal Rule on Acceptance (2) AGREEMENT BETWEEN
More informationNegligence: Approaching the duty of care
Negligence: Approaching the duty of care Introduction: Elements of negligence: - The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. - That the duty must have been breached. - That breach must have caused
More informationEQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE LAW OF HIRE-PURCHASE
EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE LAW OF HIRE-PURCHASE THE article by Mr. Aubrey L. Diamond in the Modern Law Review of September, 1956 (at p. 498), advanced the view that the court has power to grant equitable
More informationCASE NOTES AND COMMENT
CASE NOTES AND COMMENT THE HIGH COURT DECISION IN TOLL (FCGT) PTY LTD V ALPHAPHARM PTY LTD & ORS 1 Guy Cumes * INTRODUCTION The question as to whether and how the conduct of the parties constitutes a contract
More informationGenuineness of Assent
Genuineness of Assent A party who demonstrates that she did not genuinely assent to the terms of a contract may avoid an otherwise valid contract. Genuine assent may be lacking due to mistake, fraudulent
More informationChose in Action-Gilt-Novation 01 Contract-Dillwyn v. Llewellyn2
OcTOBER 1969] Case Notes 293 scope and nature of the standard of care expected of a reasonable schoolteacher. With the size of classes in State schools increasing and the pressure under which many teachers
More informationThe Rule in British Bank v Turquand in 1989
Bond Law Review Volume 1 Issue 2 Article 8 1989 The Rule in British Bank v Turquand in 1989 T E. Cain Bond University Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr This Commentary
More informationIndex (2006) 22 BCL
Acceleration costs implied direction to accelerate works requires clearest evidence, 62-74 Accord and satisfaction whether terms of settlement amounted to, 16-30 Accreditation scheme Commonwealth building
More informationThe Pseudo-Lawyer: A Financial Professional is Not a Lawyer
The Pseudo-Lawyer: A Financial Professional is Not a Lawyer By Albert S. Frank, LL.B. A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not Alexander Pope An Essay on Criticism The less you
More informationCQUniversity Division of Higher Education School of Business and Law
CQUniversity Division of Higher Education School of Business and Law LAWS11062 Contract Law B Topic 2 Misrepresentation and Misleading & Deceptive Conduct Term 2, 2014 Anthony Marinac CQUniversity 2014
More informationTHE PRINCIPLES THAT APPLY TO JUDICIAL REVIEW: ITS SCOPE AND PURPOSE
THE PRINCIPLES THAT APPLY TO JUDICIAL REVIEW: ITS SCOPE AND PURPOSE Robert Lindsay* There is controversy about the underlying principles that govern judicial review. On one view it is a common law creation.
More informationTWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE
TWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE Alex Bruce* 1. Introduction In November 1986, the High Court handed down
More informationMARKING GUIDE. Subject Name: Commercial Law 1. Exam Date: June Number of pages: 7
MARKING GUIDE Subject No: 8395F/8672D Subject Name: Commercial Law 1 Exam Date: June 2005 Number of pages: 7 2 MARKING GUIDE Part A 20 multiple choice questions worth 1 mark each: 1. [ d ] 2. [ b ] 3.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JIM MAILLARD AND. JULIET BROWN-ATTONG as Legal Personal Representative Of the Estate of Anthony Attong, Deceased
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HCA 1370 of 2002 BETWEEN JIM MAILLARD PLAINTIFF AND JULIET BROWN-ATTONG as Legal Personal Representative Of the Estate of Anthony Attong,
More informationAgency Contrasted with Other Relationships. Relationship between the Principal and Agent. Relationship between the Agent and Third Party
CHAPTER 15 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 LAW OF AGENCY Introduction Definition of Agency Agency Contrasted with Other Relationships
More informationTopic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran )
WEEK 3 Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran 363-370) Res judicata is a type of plea made in court that precludes the relitgation of
More informationFraud, Mistake and Misrepresentation
Recent Developments in European Contract Law Winter term 2007/08 Fraud, Mistake and Misrepresentation 1 Introduction: Fraud, mistake, misrepresentation When should a party be held to the contract, if he/she
More informationSALES TERMS AND CONDITIONS
SALES TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOLDLINE DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD ACN 092 472 118 Trading As GOLDLINE DISTRIBUTORS 104 DUGAN STREET, KALGOORLIE WA 6430 sales@goldlinedistributors.com WWW.GOLDLINEDISTRIBUTORS.COM
More informationTorts & Contracts II
LAWS5006 Torts & Contracts II Problem question scaffold Issue: some sort of error/mistake can the contract be set aside? CONTRACT SOLUTION When you think a mistake is present, first assess whether there
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and. 2011: August 12. JUDGMENT
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SLUHCV 200910592 BETWEEN: BAY VIEW PROPRIETORS Claimant and Appearances: Mr. Jonathan McNamara for the Claimant Mr. Horace Fraser for the Defendants [1] PHILLIPE
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS: LEE COOPER v. JEAKINS.*
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: LEE COOPER v. JEAKINS.* Several years ago Mr. R. A. Wallace in delivering a paper at this summer school discussed the House of Lords decision of Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones
More informationARCHITECTS REGISTRATION COUNCIL SEMINARS
ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION COUNCIL SEMINARS CONTRACT FORMATION FRED PHIRI ARCH.Bw May 27, 2017 1 Contents Legal Systems Legal Systems Examples Legal System Applications Civil Law Relationships Law of Obligations
More informationTopics this week. Part A Classification of Contract Terms. Part B Performance, Breach & Right of Termination
Topics this week So far we have looked at contract formation and how terms are incorporated into the contract. We have also looked at how to interpret the meaning of contract terms and whether extrinsic
More informationLIABILITY IN RESPECT OF OFFERING OF INTERESTS IN A CAYMAN ISLANDS EXEMPTED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF OFFERING OF INTERESTS IN A CAYMAN ISLANDS EXEMPTED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MEMORANDUM CONCERNING LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF OFFERING OF INTERESTS IN A CAYMAN ISLANDS EXEMPTED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
More informationAli v Hartley Poynton Limited
Ali v Hartley Poynton Limited Alexandra Feros I. Introduction BA (Qld), LLB Student, T.C. Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland In the decision of Ali v Hartley Poynton ~imited' the Supreme Court
More informationBanks and Banking--Liability of Bank Paying Check on Payer's Forged Indorsement--Fictitious Payee-- Negligence of Drawer--Estoppel
St. John's Law Review Volume 8, December 1933, Number 1 Article 15 Banks and Banking--Liability of Bank Paying Check on Payer's Forged Indorsement--Fictitious Payee-- Negligence of Drawer--Estoppel Vincent
More informationCanterbury Law Review [Vol
Canterbury Law Review [Vol. 1. 19811 REFORM OF PRIVITY introduction The doctrine of privity as laid down by the courts in the 19th century has long been the target of law reformers. As long ago as 1937
More informationATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION (REFER PARAGRAPH [4-5]
ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION (REFER PARAGRAPH [4-5] IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2016] NZERA Wellington 158 5637953 BETWEEN AND CAROLINE
More informationCONTRACT LAW. Elements of a Contract
CONTRACT LAW Contracts: Types and Sources in Australia CONTRACT: An agreement concerning promises made between two or more parties with the intention of creating certain legal rights and obligations upon
More informationLEVEL 4 - UNIT 1 CONTRACT LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015
Note to Candidates and Tutors: LEVEL 4 - UNIT 1 CONTRACT LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015 The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students
More informationThe Objective Principle of a Promise... 2 Intention to Create Legal Relations... 4 Offer and Acceptance... 5
1 Contents The Objective Principle of a Promise... 2 Intention to Create Legal Relations... 4 Offer and Acceptance... 5 Offer vs. Invitation to Treat... 5 Termination/Lapse of Offer... 6 Acceptance of
More informationCANDLEWOOD NAVIGATION CORPORATION LTD. v. MITSUI OSK LINES LTD
CANDLEWOOD NAVIGATION v. MITSUI OSK LINES 111 CANDLEWOOD NAVIGATION CORPORATION LTD. v. MITSUI OSK LINES LTD Judith Miller* Introduction It has long been recognised that for policy reasons there was a
More informationPART 5 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and definitions 219. Interpretation and application (Part 5) 220.
PART 5 DUTIES OF DIRECTORS AND OTHER OFFICERS CHAPTER 1 Preliminary and definitions 219. Interpretation and application (Part 5) 220. Connected persons 221. Shadow directors 222. De facto director CHAPTER
More informationProfiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors
Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors Author: Tim Wardell Special Counsel Edwards Michael Lawyers Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working
More informationCase Notes 295. HELICOPTER SALES (AUSTRALIA) PTY. LTD. v. ROTOR WORK PTY. LTD. AND ANOTHER1
Case Notes 295 HELCOPTER SALES (AUSTRALA) PTY. LTD. v. ROTOR WORK PTY. LTD. AND ANOTHER1 Contract for work and materials - mplied warranties - Nominated manujacturer supplier's known inability to check
More informationCED: An Overview of the Law
Torts BY: Edwin Durbin, B.Comm., LL.B., LL.M. of the Ontario Bar Part II Principles of Liability Click HERE to access the CED and the Canadian Abridgment titles for this excerpt on Westlaw Canada II.1.(a):
More informationCASES. Caveat Emptor? L.A. Lawrenson *
CASES The Sale of Goods by Description - A Return to Caveat Emptor? L.A. Lawrenson * Few decisions are reported on the provisions of Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, so any such case which is
More informationSpeaking Out in Public
Have Your Say Speaking Out in Public Last updated: 2008 These Fact Sheets are a guide only and are no substitute for legal advice. To request free initial legal advice on an environmental or planning law
More information(THIS FORM HAS 7 PAGES AND MUST BE COMPLETED IN FULL)
PRIME INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS PTY LTD ACN 131 559 772 69 CRAIGIE STREET, PO BOX 5003 BUNBURY WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6230 PHONE: 08 9780 1111 FAX: 08 9726 0399 EMAIL: admin@primesupplies.com.au 30 DAY CREDIT ACCOUNT
More informationWeek 4: Intention and Certainty
Week 4: Intention and Certainty Contract Law Intention - A contract can only be enforceable if the parties intended by that agreement to create legal relations. - This is tested objectively would a reasonable
More informationChapter 4: Contracts and Agency
Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law Volume 1956 Article 8 1-1-1956 Chapter 4: Contracts and Agency Paul M. Siskind Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/asml Part of the Contracts
More informationJ U L Y V O L U M E 6 3
LEGAL MATTERS J U L Y 2 0 1 6 V O L U M E 6 3 For a contract to be considered valid and binding in South Africa, certain requirements must be met, inter alia, there must be consensus ad idem between the
More information. a division of a department of the Executive Government;
INFRASTRUCTURE SFMINAR I "THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF DEALING WlTH GOVERNMENT AND STATUTORY BODIFS" A. POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO CONTRACT - Identifying the Party When considering the power of Government to
More informationCONTRACT LAW SUMMARY
CONTRACT LAW SUMMARY LAWSKOOL UK CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO CONTRACT LAW 6 DEFINITION OF CONTRACT LAW 6 1) The Classical Model of Contract Law 6 INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS 8 INTRODUCTION TO INTENTION
More informationCONVEYANCING LECTURE ON 31 JULY 2006
CONVEYANCING LECTURE ON 31 JULY 2006 Note: Students should read the Chapters in Lang & Skapinker and the cases referred to in the Guide. These notes are NOT a substitute for reading the text and considering
More informationContracts 2 Rose Vassel 2012 CONTRACTS 2 LAWS1072. Rose Vassel
CONTRACTS 2 LAWS1072 Rose Vassel 1 INCORPORATION BY A COURSE OF DEALINGS This is justified by the idea that by continuing to deal with the party seeking to impose those terms, they have demonstrated a
More informationLAW OF AGENCY: Principal: The person for whom such act is done, who is so represented is called the principal.
LAW OF AGENCY: Basic Definitions: Agent: An agent is a person employed to do any (lawful) act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons. Principal: The person for whom such act
More informationTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL THIRTY-THIRD REPORT LAW REFORM COMMITTEE SOUTH AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUS'IIRALIA THIRTY-THIRD REPORT of the LAW REFORM COMMITTEE of SOUTH AUSTRALIA to THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL RELATING TO LIABILITY UNDER PART IV OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1959-1 974 The Law Reform Committee
More informationPrivate Investigators Bill 2005
Private Investigators Bill 2005 A Draft Bill Setting Out The Regulatory Requirements For The Private Investigation Profession in Australia This draft Bill has been researched and prepared by the Australian
More informationTwomey Jennings: Anderson s Business Law, 23 e End of Chapter: CPA Questions and Answers
March 17, 2016 Twomey Jennings: Anderson s Business Law, 23 e End of Chapter: CPA Questions and Answers CORRECT ANSWERS IN BOLDFACE. Chapter 9: Intellectual Property Rights and the Internet 1. Multicomp
More informationCHAPTER 2 INCORPORATION & ITS CONSEQUENCES
CHAPTER 2 INCORPORATION & ITS CONSEQUENCES PROCEDURES OF INCORPORATION CHOOSE THE COMPANY S NAME FORM 13A FORM 6 STATUTORY DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION (MOA) FORM 48A STATUTORY DECLARATION
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL:08/10/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationInsolvent Companies s 553C
Insolvent Companies s 553C Mutual Credit and Set-offs Jessie Earl Senior Associate Tottle Partners 2 November 2016 Discussion points 1. The provisions 2. The leading authorities 3. The purpose of s 553C
More informationState Reporting Bureau
Qsc 34^ State Reporting Bureau Queensland Government Department of justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings >pyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be
More informationCircuit Court, D. Delaware. October 18, 1890.
YesWeScan: The FEDERAL REPORTER HARTJE ET AL. V. VULCANIZED FIBRE CO. Circuit Court, D. Delaware. October 18, 1890. 1. ESTOPPEL IN PAIS SILENCE. The owners of three patents assigned the right to their
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Schepis & Anor v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd & Anor [2007] QCA 263 PARTIES: ANTHONY SCHEPIS (first plaintiff/first appellant) MICHELE SCHEPIS (second plaintiff/second
More informationBUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK
BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK SECOND EDITION CHARLES YC CHEW CHAPTER 4: CONTRACT: TERMS AND REMEDIES FOR BREACH TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE 1. The terms of a contract may be either express or implied. Explain what is
More informationQUANTUM MERUIT SOME PITFALLS
QUANTUM MERUIT SOME PITFALLS Ben Jacobs 8 November 2017 OVERVIEW CONTEXT A valid construction contract has been repudiated by one party, such repudiation having been validly accepted by the other party
More informationContractual Remedies Act 1979
Reprint as at 1 September 2017 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 Public Act 1979 No 11 Date of assent 6 August 1979 Commencement see section 1(2) Contractual Remedies Act 1979: repealed, on 1 September 2017,
More informationUPDATE INSURANCE HUNT & HUNT LAWYERS V MITCHELL MORGAN NOMINEES PTY LTD & ORS APRIL 2013 VELLA OVERTURNED BY HIGH COURT
APRIL 2013 INSURANCE UPDATE VELLA OVERTURNED BY HIGH COURT HUNT & HUNT LAWYERS V MITCHELL MORGAN NOMINEES PTY LTD & ORS SNAPSHOT On 3 April 2013, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in
More informationPre-Incorporation Contracts Who Owns Them?
Pre-Incorporation Contracts Who Owns Them? By Albert S. Frank, LL.B. In January of 2002 the Court of Appeal for Ontario dealt with the law of pre-incorporation contracts under the Business Corporations
More informationOPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL
HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2006 07 [2007] UKHL 40 on appeal from: [2007] EWCA Civ 20 OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Premium Nafta Products Limited (20th Defendant) and others (Respondents)
More informationMidwest Real Estate Data, LLC. MRED Participant Agreement 1 DEFINITIONS AND USAGE. MRED S OBLIGATIONS. PARTICIPANT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
Midwest Real Estate Data, LLC Participant Agreement This AGREEMENT is made and entered into by Midwest Real Estate Data, LLC ( MRED ), with offices at 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 600, Lisle, IL 60532,
More informationCAPACITY TO CONTRACT Ss. 10 & 11
CAPACITY TO CONTRACT Ss. 10 & 11 CAPACITY TO CONTRACT S. 10 requires that the parties shall be competent to contract. S. 11. Who are competent to contract.- Every person is competent to contract who is
More informationHe who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself Privity of contract If one person authorizes another to do an act on his
LAW OF AGENCY He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself Privity of contract If one person authorizes another to do an act on his behalf,that other becomes the agent of the first.
More informationClass B.Com. I Sem. (Hons.)
SYLLABUS Class B.Com. I Sem. (Hons.) Subject Business Regulatory Framework UNIT I UNIT II UNIT III UNIT IV UNIT V Contract Act 1872 Definition nature of contract, offer and acceptances capacity of parties
More informationBills of Exchange Act 1909
Bills of Exchange Act 1909 Act No. 27 of 1909 as amended This compilation was prepared on 27 December 2011 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 46 of 2011 The text of any of those amendments not
More informationExtinguishment of Personal Liability on Mortgage Notes by Merger
Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 10 Issue 3 Article 1 June 1932 Extinguishment of Personal Liability on Mortgage Notes by Merger Glen W. McGrew Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Pilot Farm Holdings Pty Ltd v Inbiz Investments Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Pilot Farm Unit Trust [2011] QSC 99 PILOT FARM HOLDINGS PTY LTD (applicant) v INBIZ
More informationJan J Roestorf NO First Plaintiff David G Walshe NO Second Plaintiff. Katherine Natalie Johns Defendant. Judgment
In the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Durban Republic of South Africa Case No : 12036/07 In the matter between : Jan J Roestorf NO First Plaintiff David G Walshe NO Second Plaintiff and Katherine Natalie Johns
More informationBook Review: Dicey s Conflict of Laws
Yale Law School Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship Series Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1950 Book Review: Dicey s Conflict of Laws Fowler V. Harper Yale Law School
More informationSUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 20
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24 The text on pages 893-94 sets out s 474 of the Migration Act, as amended in 2001 in the wake of the Tampa controversy (see Chapter 12); and also refers
More informationCASE NOTES. Negligence-Breach of statutory duty by employer-defence of contributory negligence-what amounts to.
CASE NOTES KAKOURIS v. GIBBS BURGE & CO. PTY LTD1 Negligence-Breach of statutory duty by employer-defence of contributory negligence-what amounts to. Since Piro v. Foster2 it has been clear law that contributory
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS THOMAS MCCRACKEN, RICHARD CADOURA, MICHAEL KEARNS, and MICHAEL CHRISTY, FOR PUBLICATION February 8, 2011 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs-Appellants, V No. 294218 Wayne Circuit Court
More informationIs there a contract?
1. te whether this transaction is governed by UCC or the Restatement. 2. Does the Statute of Frauds apply? The contract must be in writing if it is in regard to land, if by its nature it takes more than
More informationCircuit Court, M. D. Alabama
LEHMAN, DURR & CO. V. CENTRAL RAILROAD & BANKING CO. Circuit Court, M. D. Alabama. 1882. COMMON CARRIER ALTERED BILL OF LADING LIABILITY. The fact that the shipper was allowed to fill the bill of lading
More informationCompulsory Acquisition and Informal Agreements: Spencer v Commonwealth
Compulsory Acquisition and Informal Agreements: Spencer v Commonwealth Stephen Lloyd Abstract Spencer v Commonwealth 1 raises important questions about the validity of intergovernmental schemes involving
More informationPage 1 of 16 COMPANY.LAW
Page 1 of 16 COMPANY.LAW Definition ;- Sec 3 (I) (i) of the Companies Act, 1956 defines a Company as A Company means a Company formed and registered under this Act or an existing Company. An existing Company
More informationFor personal use only
Driver Australia Master Trust VWFS Australia Security Deed Dated 23 June 2016 Volkswagen Financial Services Australia Pty Limited (ABN 20 097 071 460 ( VWFS Australia Perpetual Corporate Trust Limited
More informationTHE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE: A COMMENT ON FOUR RECENT ENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN DECISIONS
THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE: A COMMENT ON FOUR RECENT ENGLISH AND AUSTRALIAN DECISIONS LEGIONE v. HA TELE Y SCANDINAVIAN TRADING TANKER CO. A.B. v. FLOTA PETROLERA ECUA TORIANA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND CHANCERY DIVISION SANTANDER UK PLC. -v- ANTHONY PARKER (No. 2)
Neutral Citation No. [2012] NICh 20 Ref: DEE8530 Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 6.6.2012 (subject to editorial corrections) DEENY J IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN
More informationContinuing to act after negligence rights, problems and consequences
Continuing to act after negligence rights, problems and consequences Leslie Blohm QC, St John s Chambers Published on 29 th April 2014 What is the scope of this talk? 1. With the best will in the world,
More informationSusan S. Oosting, Michael Fox Orr and Charles W. Dorman of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman, & Goggin, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
KONE, INC., f/k/a MONTGOMERY KONE, INC., v. Appellant, ANGELA ROBINSON and HUMANA MEDICAL PLAN, INC., IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE
More informationLAW REFERRING TO CONTRACT AND OTHER LIABILITIES
Document prepared by the MLMUPC Cambodia, Supported by ADB TA 3577 and LMAP TA GTZ. Council of State DECREE No. 38 D /October 28, 1988 LAW REFERRING TO CONTRACT AND OTHER LIABILITIES Seen the Constitution
More informationGuidance Notes: Step Practice Rule to Trustee Exemption Clauses
1. Where a member prepares, or causes to be prepared, a will or other testamentary document or a trust instrument (each an Instrument ), or is aware of being named as an original trustee or executor in
More informationTHE CONTRACT FORMATION PROCESS THE PRESENTER INTRODUCTION TOPICS CONTRACT LAW: ESSENTIAL SKILLS FOR NON-LAWYERS HYATT HOTEL CANBERRA 18 JUNE 2014
THE CONTRACT FORMATION PROCESS CONTRACT LAW: ESSENTIAL SKILLS FOR NON-LAWYERS HYATT HOTEL CANBERRA 18 JUNE 2014 THE PRESENTER Sean King is a Director at Proximity, a leading provider of legal and procurement
More information674 TEE MODERN LAW REVIEW VOL. 23
674 TEE MODERN LAW REVIEW VOL. 23 subjects which was how the Master of the Rolls summarised the views of Denning J., as he then was, in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions.? The recognition of a distinction
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Contracts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Berelli Co., the largest single
More information