82,927
edits
Re Spectrum Plus: Difference between revisions
→Stare decisis
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*[[Stare decisis]]: Does a newly decided strand of common law apply to contracts pre-dating its development, which were concluded on the assumption of contrary rules? | *[[Stare decisis]]: Does a newly decided strand of common law apply to contracts pre-dating its development, which were concluded on the assumption of contrary rules? | ||
*[[Fixed charge|Fixed]] and [[Floating charge|floating]] [[charges]]: If you call it a [[fixed charge]], you know, ''is it''? | *[[Fixed charge|Fixed]] and [[Floating charge|floating]] [[charges]]: If you call it a [[fixed charge]], you know, ''is it''? | ||
==[[Stare decisis]]== | ==[[Stare decisis]] and the possibility of [[prospective overruling]]== | ||
{{casenote1|Re Spectrum Plus}} overruled the earlier decision of Si''ebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd'' [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 142. This meant charges drafted as fixed charges on honest reliance on that principal were suddently questionable. Given the time value of charge registration this potentially invalidated or at the very least severely weakened a whole lot of security documents. so could the court apply “[[prospective overruling]]” such that existing charges entered into in good faith in reliance on Siebe Gorman would be upheld? | {{casenote1|Re Spectrum Plus}} overruled the earlier decision of Si''ebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd'' [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 142. This meant charges drafted as fixed charges on honest reliance on that principal were suddently questionable. Given the time value of charge registration this potentially invalidated or at the very least severely weakened a whole lot of security documents. so could the court apply “[[prospective overruling]]” such that existing charges entered into in good faith in reliance on Siebe Gorman would be upheld? | ||