82,900
edits
Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance: Difference between revisions
Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance (view source)
Revision as of 11:16, 20 February 2021
, 20 February 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|casenote|}}{{cite|Lloyds Bank|Independent Insurance|1998|EWCACiv|1853}} | {{a|casenote|}}{{cite|Lloyds Bank|Independent Insurance|1998|EWCACiv|1853}} | ||
===A word about pronouns=== | ===A word about pronouns=== | ||
A Court of Appeal judge is undoubtedly a guardian of the Queen’s English, and far be it from this snitty little rogue to have an opinion (I mean, can you imagine?), but Lord Justice | A Court of Appeal judge is undoubtedly a guardian of the Queen’s English, and far be it from this snitty little rogue to have an opinion (I mean, can you imagine?), but [[Lord Justice Waller]]’s habit of referring to a corporation as if it were<ref>Note: [[subjunctive]]!</ref> a ''crowd'', and therefore a [[plural]] is ''an abomination''. | ||
It is galling enough when members of the internet do this, to their favourite [[Nigel molesworth|foopball]] teams or pop bands, where there is at least an argument, however misguided, that the whole is no more than the sum of its members, but a [[corporation]], under his honour’s own freaking ''law'', is ''its own [[legal personality]]''. It is — must be, at a profoundly [[ontological]] level — a ''singular'' entity. | It is galling enough when members of the internet do this, to their favourite [[Nigel molesworth|foopball]] teams or pop bands, where there is at least an argument, however misguided, that the whole is no more than the sum of its members, but a [[corporation]], under his honour’s own freaking ''law'', is ''its own [[legal personality]]''. It is — must be, at a profoundly [[ontological]] level — a ''singular'' entity. | ||