Company Law - Summary (updated) Way to success in company law; Related Studylists . London Trust Co. Ltd. v. Mackenzie (1893) 62 L.J.Ch. At best, atrustee who relied on a fellow-trustee would be jointly liable, but entitled to an indemnity. 28 See, e.g., Re Cardiff Savings Bank, Marquis of Bute's Case [1892] 2 Ch. 6 Cf. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. 16 January 2009. 753754Google Scholar, who argue in support of a wider principle allowing the gratuitous release of accrued equitable rights generally. In April Fiona entered into contracts with (1) Compu Ltd for the supply of computers for the new company and (2) Cleanit Ltd for the supply of vacuum cleaners for the new company.. 85 Cook v. Deeks [1916] 1 A.C. 554Google Scholar. If the plaintiff company had relied on Cook v. Deeks (supra), and alleged that the profits belonged in equity to it, it is submitted that the plea would have been unanswerable. 392, 437. In the case of Kelner v Baxter (1866)[5] a contract for the delivery of goods (bottles of wine) was entered into by a promoter on behalf of a company that had yet to be formed, with the intention that the company would sell the goods after its incorporation. Zwicker v. Stanbury [1954] 1 D.L.R. 393; cf. page 134 note 73 The union is capable of suing in its own name (Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, s.2(l)(c)) and the rule in Foss v. Harbottle applies to proceedings brought in respect of wrongs done to it: Cotter v. National Union of Seamen [1929] 2 Ch. Published online by Cambridge University Press: p. 453). 213217. Co. Ltd. [1925]Google Scholar Ch. 19 Re Kingston Cotton Mill (No. 272; also Gray v. New Augarita Porcupine Mines Ltd [1952] 3 D.L.R. Three questions are posed by the scenario under review. 10 Ch.App. Suitably worded articles would, however, seem capable of altering this general rule to confer the power of release on the non-interested directors. It may be possible to adopt the contract or negotiate a replacement contract on the same terms but this will probably be a matter for mutual agreement (given that the facts are silent as to the exact terms of the original agreement) and not something on which Tidy plc could insist. 657 (H.L.) Here the court confirmed that not only is the remedy of rescission available, but also the promoter can be compelled to account for the full amount of any profit actually made in the transaction. & G. 133; Mitchell v. Homfray (1882) 8 Q.B.D. 34Google Scholar; Shaw & Sons (Salford) Ltd. v. Shaw [1935] 2 K.B. 48 Land Credit Co. of Ireland v. Lord Fermoy (1870) L.R. 75 Cf. Mayson, French and Ryan, Mayson, French and Ryan on Company Law, (2005) Oxford University Press, Keenan D., & Bisacre J., Smith & Keenans Company Law For Students, (2005) Longman, Dine J, Company Law, 5th ed, (2005) Palgrave Macmillan, French, Statutes on Company Law 2005-2006, (2005) Oxford University Press. The somewhat problematic successor to the self-dealing rule in company law is Companies Act 2006, s. 177. . 409. 752; London Financial Assn. Beattie v. E. & F. Beattie Ltd. [1938]Google Scholar Ch. 409; Dovey v. Cory [1901]Google Scholar A.C. 477; note 43, supra. Peso Silver Mines Ltd. v. Cropper (1966Google Scholar) 56 D.L.R. An example was the Re cape Breton Co (1885)case. 226), so that there could be no breach of trust by the corporation in which the director could be involved; and, further, if this view were correct, the proper plaintiffs in Charitable Corpn. View all Google Scholar citations there must presumably be disclosure to the members as well. Robinson v. Randfontein Estates Gold Mining Co. Ltd., 1921Google Scholar A.D. 168, 195: justified in inferring a mandate wide enough to include the transaction.. AE Cape Breton Co. Revisited 18 Bracton Law Journal 1986
