83,428
edits
Mercury Tax Group Limited v HMRC: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
:(b) it is [[delivered]] as a [[deed]] by {{sex|him}} or a person authorised to do so on {{sex|his}} behalf.}} | :(b) it is [[delivered]] as a [[deed]] by {{sex|him}} or a person authorised to do so on {{sex|his}} behalf.}} | ||
The court found that this language necessarily involves that the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document constituting the deed. Additionally, the fact that the parties ''intended'' them to be deeds, rather than that they were ''required by law to be'' deeds (in order to have legal effect) was what mattered: “the fact remains that the parties intended them to be deeds and their validity must be judged on that basis”. | The court found that this language necessarily involves that the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document constituting the deed. Additionally, the fact that the parties ''intended'' them to be deeds, rather than that they were ''required by law to be'' deeds (in order to have legal effect) was what mattered: “the fact remains that the parties intended them to be deeds and their validity must be judged on that basis”. (''Just quietly, we’re nmot quitre sire that follows: if they don’t have to be deeds, and they way you execute them means they aren’t deeds, surely cannot undermine an intention to become bound by a [[simple contract]], if the usual ingredients of offer, acceptance and consideration are not present). | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Deed]] | *[[Deed]] and [[simple contract]] | ||
*[[Signed, sealed, delivered]] | *[[Signed, sealed, delivered]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||