PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL LAW: ALL TOPICS (Revision Notes)
77 vues 5 fois vendu
Cours
Law 237: Principles of Commercial Law (LAW237)
Établissement
Lancaster University (LU)
Book
Principles of Commercial Law
In-depth yet succinct revision notes of topics from all Commercial Law Lectures, comprising all relevant cases (key facts, decisions, rules) and relevant statutes, as well as some reference to journal articles and other secondary sources. Can be used for exam revision (multiple choice and/or proble...
Insolvency (Principles of Commercial Law)
Arbitration (Principles of Commercial Law)
Debt Financing and Security (Principles of Commercial Law)
Tout pour ce livre (9)
École, étude et sujet
Lancaster University (LU)
Inconnu
Law 237: Principles of Commercial Law (LAW237)
Tous les documents sur ce sujet (9)
Vendeur
S'abonner
kjlawnotes
Aperçu du contenu
COMMERCIAL LAW REVISION TOPICS
1. Agency
2. Sale of Goods
3. Bailments
4. Carriage of Goods by Sea
5. Methods of Payment
6. Debt Financing and Security
7. Arbitration
8. Insolvency
1
,Agency
• Agency is an exception to the doctrine of privity of contract
• Agent and principal - both can sue and be sued on terms of contract
Case name Facts Issue Decision Rule
New Zealand NZS Had stevedores HoL – held for A third party can
Shipping v AM (stevedores) provided stevedores – sue if contractor
Satterthwaite worked for sufficient loading goods acts as third
(The FSN in consideration to for AMS was party’s agent –
Eurymedon) loading and be a party to sufficient third party to
(1975) unloading contract consideration provide
ship. consideration for
agreement
Formation of Agency by:
Agreement
Heard v Pilley Landlord and tenant Regular oral contract – no special formalities
(1869)
Freeman and Kapoor appointed by CoA held D company Where an agreement
Lockyer v D company to handle was bound to pay P exists to appoint an
Buckhurst Park land sale – but acted for their work – agent, we speak of an
Properties beyond his actual Kapoor had ‘actual ‘actual authority’
[1964] authority but within authority’ vested in the agent,
normal authority of which may be express
his role or implied.
European Where instructions If agent fails to seek Express actual
Asian Bank v are clear but clarification, they will authority – clearly
Punjab & Sind erroneous, P will be not be able to rely on defined
Bank (No 2) liable to A on the the vagueness of the
[1983] basis of contract instructions vis-à-vis
actually made the P
Waugh v HB Solicitor/client Such authority as the Implied actual
Clifford & Sons relationship involving circumstances seem authority –
(1982) an implied authority to suggest circumstances of a
in the conduct of contract gives out
litigation to negotiate roles of A and P to
settlement of case parties – also implied
form conduct
2
, Watteu v Wiles J at 348: 'The Usual or customary
Fenwick (1893) principal is liable for all authority – that you’d
the acts of the agent expect someone to
which are within the have in their particular
authority usually
role
confided to an agent of
that character,
notwithstanding
limitations as between
the principal and the
agent, put upon that
authority.’
Graves v Legg Must act in Usual or customary
(1857) accordance with any authority – custom
customs of a must be ‘certain,
particular market notorious and
reasonable’ (Perry v
Barnett (1885))
Ratification
• The action of signing or giving formal consent to a contract, making it officially valid
• Principal can ratify an agreement between agent and other party to ratify and create
an agency
Keighley, Corn merchant R did not have Action failed – Named or
Maxsted & (Roberts) authority from R contracted in identifiable
Co v Durant authorised by KM to KM but went his own name, principal;
[1901] buy wheat at and bought did not undisclosed
certain price on corn form D in mention KM – principals
joint account for his own name. any purported cannot ratify
himself and them. R KM ratified ratification by
did not manage to transaction but KM was
buy any at that didn’t take ineffective – no
price - could buy delivery of obligation to
some at higher price wheat. D sued Durant
from Durant (corn KM for breach
merchant in of contract
London).
Kelner v Promoters of an They argued Willes J [184] Principal
Baxter unformed company that company rejected their existing and
(1866) entered contracts ratified when it argument – ascertainable
on its behalf came into person must be when contract
existence, so in is made
they’d have no contemplation
personal of the law
liability
3
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur kjlawnotes. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour 21,91 €. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.