Poretta v Superior Dowel Company: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "A contemporary american case on undisclosed agency, undisclosed principals and so on, containing a lengthy disquisition on the merits (few) of Lord T..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A contemporary | 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}}. | ||
(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]). | ||
Revision as of 17:24, 22 September 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 Heald v Kenworthy and (great) of Parke B’s scornful disagreement with that dictum, as set out in Thompson v Davenport.
(transcript here).