Poretta v Superior Dowel Company: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
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]).

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).

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Poretta_v_Superior_Dowel_Company&oldid=14148"