Secure Capital v Credit Suisse: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
So wait, ''what''? The court is basically acknowledging that it is impossible for ''anyone'' to recover in contract for a breach of a bearer security held in a clearance system, since the proximate holder is obliged only to pass on to the ultimate holder what it receives, so it is "perfectly hedged". | So wait, ''what''? The court is basically acknowledging that it is impossible for ''anyone'' to recover in contract for a breach of a bearer security held in a clearance system, since the proximate holder is obliged only to pass on to the ultimate holder what it receives, so it is "perfectly hedged". | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Privity of contract]] | *[[Privity of contract]] | ||
*[[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] | *[[Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999]] | ||
*[[Negligent misstatement]] | *[[Negligent misstatement]] | ||