King's Norton Metal Company Ltd v Edridge, Merrett & Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1897 |
| Date | 1897 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
8 cases
-
Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
...standing, the loss falls on the unfortunate owner of the goods who was tricked into parting with them to the crook. King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge, Merrett and Co Ltd (1897) 14 TLR 98 is an instance of this. There the crook ordered some brass rivet wire from a metal manufacturer. On h......
-
P&P Property Ltd v Owen White & Catlin LLP
...intends to contract. This was the position in Boulton v Jones 27 LJ Ex 117, Cundy v Lindsay 3 App Cas 459 and King's Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge, Merrett & Co Ltd 14 TLR 98. There is a substantial body of authority that demonstrates that the identity of a party to a contract in writing fa......
-
Lewis v Averay
...costs to be paid out of the Legal Aid Fund. Application under section of the 1964 Act and Regulation 11King's Norton Metal Co. Ltd, v. Edridge Merrett & Co. Ltd. (1897) 14 T.L.R. 98, and of Mr. Justice Horridge in Phillips v. Brooks, 1919 2 K.B. 243, which has stood for these last fifty yea......
- Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Mistake
...the writer had more attractive attributes than proved to be the case. The distinction between 46 Cundy , above note 45 at 465. 47 (1897), 14 TLR 98 (CA) [ King’s Norton ]. THE LAW OF CONTR ACTS 594 identity and attributes may be thought to capture a genuine distinction between the facts of ......
-
Fixed Charges Over Book Debts
...(1878) 3 App Cas 459), if he wasnot then the contract was merely voidable (King’s Norton Metal Co Ltd vEdridge, Merrett & Co Ltd(1897) 14TLR 98). In the second situation, however,the co ntractwould always bevoid: see SowlervPotter [1939] 4 All ER 478. It i s submitted that these two situati......
-
Identity Mistakes: A Missed Opportunity?
...(1878) 3 App Cas 459), if he wasnot then the contract was merely voidable (King’s Norton Metal Co Ltd vEdridge, Merrett & Co Ltd(1897) 14TLR 98). In the second situation, however,the co ntractwould always bevoid: see SowlervPotter [1939] 4 All ER 478. It i s submitted that these two situati......