Poretta v Superior Dowel Company: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 19:20, 19 December 2020

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.

A shelf in the JC’s law library yesterday

Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman

Click ᐅ to expand: Case notes

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you. Sign up for our newsletter.

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).

Revision as of 17:24, 22 September 2016 (view source) 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...")		Latest revision as of 19:20, 19 December 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Poretta v Superior Dowel Company - Case Note to Poretta v Superior Dowel Company)
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
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~~}}.		{{cn}}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]).