Heald v Kenworthy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m Amwelladmin moved page Heald v Kenworthy - Case Note to Heald v Kenworthy |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A formative case on the principle of [[undisclosed agent|undisclosed agency]] in which Parke B roundly dissed “Lord Tenterden’s rule” (that an undisclosed [[principal]] is not liable to the [[vendor]] if the [[principal]] has paid or settled accounts with the [[agent]]) devised in {{casenote|Thompson|Davenport}}, and instead opined that the [[undisclosed principal]] has no defence when {{sex|he}} has settled accounts or made payment to the [[agent]], unless the third party has misled the [[principal]] into making that payment. | {{cn}}A formative case on the principle of [[undisclosed agent|undisclosed agency]] in which Parke B roundly dissed “Lord Tenterden’s rule” (that an undisclosed [[principal]] is not liable to the [[vendor]] if the [[principal]] has paid or settled accounts with the [[agent]]) devised in {{casenote|Thompson|Davenport}}, and instead opined that the [[undisclosed principal]] has no defence when {{sex|he}} has settled accounts or made payment to the [[agent]], unless the third party has misled the [[principal]] into making that payment. | ||
Discussed at some length in {{casenote|Poretta|Superior Dowel Company}} (transcript [http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1957/137-a-2d-361-0.html here]). | Discussed at some length in {{casenote|Poretta|Superior Dowel Company}} (transcript [http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1957/137-a-2d-361-0.html here]). | ||
Latest revision as of 19:11, 19 December 2020
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
A formative case on the principle of undisclosed agency in which Parke B roundly dissed “Lord Tenterden’s rule” (that an undisclosed principal is not liable to the vendor if the principal has paid or settled accounts with the agent) devised in Thompson v Davenport, and instead opined that the undisclosed principal has no defence when he has settled accounts or made payment to the agent, unless the third party has misled the principal into making that payment.
Discussed at some length in Poretta v Superior Dowel Company (transcript here).