Foster v Driscoll ; Lindsay v Attfield ; Lindsay v Driscoll

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1929
Year1929
CourtCourt of Appeal
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
83 cases
  • JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant and Others v Ronly Holdings Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 16 Febrero 2004
    ...for shipment to South Africa which would be contrary to the law of India. The application by the House of Lords of the reasoning in Foster v. Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470 to the facts in Regazzoni turned substantially on the fact that the underlying illegality involved was the carrying out of a......
  • ABDA Airfreight Sdn Bhd v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 Enero 2001
  • Regazzoni v K. C. Sethia (1944) Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 21 Octubre 1957
    ...in a foreign and friendly State which violates the law of that State. For this they cite the authority of the well known case of Foster v. Driscoll and Others [1929] 1 K.B. 470, and much of the debate in this House has been whether that case was rightly decided, and if so whether it is dist......
  • Ajt v Aju
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 16 Julio 2010
    ...(refd) Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd [2010] 3 SLR 661 (refd) Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470 (folld) Kamini Kumar Basu v Birendra Nath BasuAIR 1930 PC 100 (folld) Kaufman v Gerson [1904] 1 KB 591 (distd) Lemenda Trading Co Ltd v Afri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
14 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACTUAL ILLEGALITY AND CONFLICT OF LAWS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1995, December 1995
    • 1 Diciembre 1995
    ...115, a decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber. 12 Ibid., at 129. 13 By reason of the operation of the rule in Foster v. Driscoll[1929] 1 K.B. 470 and the rule in Ralli Brothers v. Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar[1920] 2 K.B. 287. 14 Chapter 97, 1990 Edition. 15 See Amalgamated Steel Mills......
  • Choice-of-law Agreements in International Contracts
    • United States
    • University of Georgia School of Law Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law No. 50-1, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...§ 8.02(2)(a) (apparently omitting requirements).245. Regazzoni v. KC Sethia Ltd. [1958] AC 301 (H.L.). See also Foster v. Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470 (English Ct. App.) (refusal to enforce contract for import of alcohol into United States during Prohibition).246. Id. at 318-19. The case involv......
  • ‘From Rome to Rome’ – Cross-border employment contract. European Private International Law: Intertemporal law and foreign overriding mandatory laws
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law No. 24-2, April 2017
    • 1 Abril 2017
    ...inspired by the common law approach, notably the case law of the English courts (forexample the judgment in (UK) Foster v. Driscoll, [1929] 1 KB 470) which is based on the assumption that, not havingregard to foreign overriding mandatory provisions can sometimes result in a breach of the pu......
  • Illegality
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Contracts. Third Edition Vitiating Factors
    • 4 Agosto 2020
    ...Co , [1988] QB 448 [ Lemenda Trading ]. 125 Neville v Dominion of Canada News Co Ltd , [1915] 3 KB 556. 126 Foster v Driscoll , [1929] 1 KB 470. See also Shiesel v Kirsch , [1931] OR 41 (CA); Regazzoni v KC Sethia (1944) Ltd , [1958] AC 301 (HL); Royal Boskalis Westminster NV v Mountain , [......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT