Poretta v Superior Dowel Company: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:16, 14 November 2016

A contemporary American case on undisclosed agency, undisclosed principals and so on, containing a lengthy disquisition on the merits (few) of Lord Tenterden’s rule from Thompson v Davenport and (great) of Parke B’s scornful disagreement with that dictum, as set out in Heald v Kenworthy.

(transcript here).

Revision as of 17:24, 22 September 2016 view source Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators 88,419 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 15:16, 14 November 2016 view source Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators 88,419 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A contemporary American case on [[Undisclosed agent\|undisclosed agency]], [[undisclosed principal]]s and so on, containing a lengthy disquisition on the merits (few) of Lord Tenterden’s rule from {{casenote\|~~Heald~~\|~~Kenworthy~~}} and (great) of Parke B’s scornful disagreement with that dictum, as set out in {{casenote\|~~Thompson~~\|~~Davenport~~}}.		A contemporary American case on [[Undisclosed agent\|undisclosed agency]], [[undisclosed principal]]s and so on, containing a lengthy disquisition on the merits (few) of Lord Tenterden’s rule from {{casenote\|Thompson\|Davenport}} and (great) of Parke B’s scornful disagreement with that dictum, as set out in {{casenote\|Heald\|Kenworthy}}.

	(transcript [http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1957/137-a-2d-361-0.html here]).		(transcript [http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1957/137-a-2d-361-0.html here]).