Thompson v Davenport: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Thompson v Davenport (view source)

Revision as of 19:28, 19 December 2020

6 bytes added , 19 December 2020

m

Amwelladmin moved page Thompson v Davenport - Case Note to Thompson v Davenport

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

Revision as of 15:15, 14 November 2016 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 19:28, 19 December 2020 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Thompson v Davenport - Case Note to Thompson v Davenport)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A formative but ultimately uninfluential case on the principle of [[undisclosed agent\|undisclosed agency]] in which Lord Tenterden devised a rule having an extraordinary and quite inequitable effect (that an undisclosed [[principal]] is not liable to a [[vendor]] if the [[principal]] has paid the [[agent]]) which Parke B roundly dissed in the subsequent case of {{casenote\|Heald\|Kenworthy}}. Discussed at some length in the US case {{casenote\|Poretta\|Superior Dowel Company}} (transcript [http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1957/137-a-2d-361-0.html here]).		{{cn}}A formative but ultimately uninfluential case on the principle of [[undisclosed agent\|undisclosed agency]] in which Lord Tenterden devised a rule having an extraordinary and quite inequitable effect (that an undisclosed [[principal]] is not liable to a [[vendor]] if the [[principal]] has paid the [[agent]]) which Parke B roundly dissed in the subsequent case of {{casenote\|Heald\|Kenworthy}}. Discussed at some length in the US case {{casenote\|Poretta\|Superior Dowel Company}} (transcript [http://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1957/137-a-2d-361-0.html here]).