Thompson v Davenport: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A formative but ultimately uninfluential case on the principle of [[undisclosed agent|undisclosed agency]] in which Lord Tenterden devised a rule (that an undisclosed [[principal]] is not liable to | A formative but ultimately uninfluential case on the principle of [[undisclosed agent|undisclosed agency]] in which Lord Tenterden devised a rule having an extraordinary and quite inequitable effect (that an undisclosed [[principal]] is not liable to a [[vendor]] if the [[principal]] has paid the [[agent]]) which Parke B roundly dissed in the subsequent case of {{casenote|Heald|Kenworthy}}. Discussed at some length in the US case {{casenote|Poretta|Superior Dowel Company}} (transcript [http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1957/137-a-2d-361-0.html here]). | ||
Revision as of 15:15, 14 November 2016
A formative but ultimately uninfluential case on the principle of undisclosed agency in which Lord Tenterden devised a rule having an extraordinary and quite inequitable effect (that an undisclosed principal is not liable to a vendor if the principal has paid the agent) which Parke B roundly dissed in the subsequent case of Heald v Kenworthy. Discussed at some length in the US case Poretta v Superior Dowel Company (transcript here).