re cape breton co 1885 case summary

Info: 2817 words (11 pages) Essay ; Re George Newman & Co. [1895] 1 Ch. The distinction is not always made clearly in the cases which follow; but it is the essential factor in determining whether the interested directors may use their votes as members in order to sanction the retention of a profit made by them. If the chairs were purchased after Graham began work as a promoter of Tidy plc then alongside the remedy of rescission it will be possible to regard the promoter as an agent of Tidy plc when he acquired the chairs and thus the company could recover the profit made by Graham. 75 Cf. Cannon v. Trask (1875) L.R. 29 The decisive case is probably Land Credit Co. of Ireland v. Lord Fermoy (1870) L.R. 409, 416, per Chitty J. 1064, 106667Google Scholar, where he twice refers to the alleged wrong as a transaction, and speaks of the possibility of the transaction being confirmed by the majority, but not of the release of the wrongdoers from personal liability. 619: 8 directors, 2 trustees, 3 public officers (for the purposes of litigation). 8586 per Slade L.J., with whom Lawton L.J. Chapter 2 - Promoters & Pre-Incorporation - Studocu 350Google Scholar. 's analysis but considering himself constrained by authority from following it. 85 Cook v. Deeks [1916] 1 A.C. 554Google Scholar. Ltd. (1890) 59 L.J.Ch. ), Company Law Casebook, (1994) HLT Publications. 77 Bell v. Lever Bros. Ltd. [1932]Google Scholar A.C. 161, 195, per Lord Blanesburgh; London & Mashonaland Exploration Co. v. New Mashonaland Exploration Co. [1891] W.N. 515. page 145 note 31 Cf. 258. 400. 89 Robinson v. Randfontein Estates Gold Mining Co. Ltd. [1921]Google Scholar A.D. 168 (where one director completely dominated the board); G. E. Smith Ltd. v. Smith [1952]Google Scholar N.Z.L.R. p. 453). 16 January 2009. 10 Ch.App. In the case Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co (1878)[11], the promoter of a company, Erlanger, acquired the lease of a phosphate mine in the West Indies for a sum of 55,000. However, On 1 August Graham sold a quantity of office chairs, which he had purchased for 1000, to Tidy plc for 4000 and it is submitted that this transaction is likely to prove incompatible with the law. 476, 511. 2) [1896] 1 Ch. 292 (H.C.A.). 634; Pavlides v. Jensen [1956]Google Scholar Ch. page 125 note 17 Palmer, Vol. But in another sense he is not honest. Buckley L.J. 99,42999,432Google Scholar. 589; and by the High Court of Australia in Tracy v. Mandalay Ply Ltd (1952) 88 C.L.R. page 148 note 44 Gore-Browne, para. 87 Parker v. McKenna (1874) L.R. 62 Piercy v. S. Mills & Co. Ltd. [1920]Google Scholar 1 Ch. 407. page 127 note 30 Limitation of Actions in Equity, pp. 67 Overend & Gurney Co. v. Gibb (1872) L.R. Three questions are posed by the scenario under review. 25 Cf. page 122 note 5 See Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 itself. Re Cape Breton Co (1885) Where principalhas interest in acquiring the property, the fiduciary, taking advantage and can give 1st offer to the principal. Co. Ltd. [1925] Ch. 727; Ashburner, , Principles of Equity, 2nd ed. See also Ashburner, Principles of Equity, pp. 88 88 Boston Deep Sea Fishing . Gower, op. 2 Overend Gurney & Co. v. Gurney (1869) L.R. 1064, 10661067per Jenkins, L.J.Google Scholar; Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd (No. 150Google Scholar, 163. 253Google Scholar (ultra vires); Zwicker v. Stunbury [1954] 1 D.L.R. 461. 425Google Scholar. 78, Table A, First Schedule, Companies Act 1948. page 144 note 22 See, e.g., the dicta of the House of Lords in Regal (Hastings) Ltd v. Gulliver [1967] 2 A.C. 134n, 155, 157 per Wright, LordGoogle Scholar, and in Boardman v. Phipps [1967] 2 A.C. 46, 109per Hodson, LordGoogle Scholar, 117 per Lord Guest; and also: New Zealand Netherlands Society Oranje Inc. v. Kuys [1973] 2 All E.R. page 147 note 40 See, e.g., Boardman v. Phipps [1967] 2 A.C. 46; Burland v. Earle [1902] A.C. 83, 93. page 147 note 41 Provided always, of course, that the entering of such compromises was within the vires of the company which would, presumably, require the compromise to be bona fide: see Re Hall Garage Ltd [1982] 3 All E.R. 591; Zwicker v. Stanbury [1954] 1 D.L.R. D. 400. Re Cape Breton Co (1885) Six partners purchased coal mines for 5,500 and mined themduring the partnership. 204. for this article. 4 Ch.App. 158. 2 e.g., Keeton, The Director as Trustee (1952) 5 C.L.P. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. 64.25. cit. v. Blaikie Bros. (1854) 1 Macq. 1, para. Hostname: page-component-75b8448494-6dz42 272; also Gray v. New Augarita Porcupine Mines Ltd [1952] 3 D.L.R. 6425; Pennington, p. 737; and see Bamford v. Bamford [1970] Ch. 50 Grimwade v. Mutual Society (1884) 52 L.T. 48 Land Credit Co. of Ireland v. Lord Fermoy (1870) L.R. 22 Nov. 1770. 26 York and North-Midland Ry. 76 Unfortunately, many articles (including the provisions made in Table A from 1856 to 1929) provide for the removal or punishment of a director who fails to disclose an interest to the rest of the board, without indicating whether this is sufficient to validate the contract. 5 H.L. Acting in the Best Interests of the CompanyFor whom are the Directors Trustees? 5184. Lecturer at University of Exeter It is the accepted view' that Re Cape Breton Co.- stands for the principle that if a person acquired property before becoming a promoter or forming any intention to promote a company and subsequently sold that property to a company being promoted by him . 's well-known exposition of the rule in Foss v. Harbottle and its exceptions in Edwards v. Halliwell [1950] 2 All E.R. 231, 271 (27 directors of whom 5 trustees); Chilean and Peruvian Mining Assn., in Ducarry v. Gill (1830) M. & M. 450 (3 trustees, also directors but not enough for a quorum of directors). 283Google Scholar, and Dugdale, and Yates, , Variation, Waiver and Estoppel: A Re-Appraisal (1976) 39 M.L.R. 85 in Table A of the Companies (Tables A to F) Regulations 1985 which does not even subject the directors' exclusion from liability to the contrary directions of the company: compare the new art. 58 Hirsche v. Sims [1894] A.C. 654; Seligman v. Prince & Co. [1895] 2 Ch. Co. Ltd. [1925]Google Scholar Ch. (Ct.Sess.)

Mtg Mutate Commander Tax, Illinois Tollway Accident Yesterday, Car Makes Noise When Starting Then Goes Away, Articles R