Newborne v Sensolid (Great Britain) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,LORD JUSTICE MORRIS,LORD JUSTICE ROMER |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] EWCA Civ J0219-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 19 February 1953 |
[1953] EWCA Civ J0219-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
The Lord Chief Justice of England
(Lord Goddard)
Lord Justice Morris and
Lord Justice Romer
MR KENNETH DIPLOCK, Q.C. and MR MARK LITTMAN (instructed by Messrs Godfrey Davis & Foster) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
MR LEONARD PEARL (instructed by Messrs Ashurst, Morris Crisp & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff).
This is an appeal from a decision of Mr Justice Parker where he gave Judgment for the Refinance, as he said with great reluctance. I may say that this Court dismisses the appeal with equal reluctance, for the Defendant has taken advantage in this case of what might bedescribed as the merest technicality having not the smallest merits the only thing that arises from the case is that it dose not show very also nice commercial morality on the part of the Defendant.
The facts are theses A gentleman of foreign extraction, whether he is a British subject or not, who had, as the learned Judge said, an imperfect acquaintance with the English language and I suppose did not understand the implications of English occupancy low having been working for other people, doodled that he would go into the pro vision trade on his own account, be subsequently formed a company bearing his own name Leopold seaborne (London) Ltd. At the time material to this notion he was no doubt en the point of regletering this Company, and J dare say he had seen solicitors who had got everything in order but he had not registered it. He seemed to think that there would be no objection to his using the stationery that he had had prepared in anticipation of this company running this business for carrying on this trade, I suppose he did not think it mattered whether the company was actually registered or not. On the 13th march 1951 he having discovered that he could buy from another Company called J.Q. Gilbert, Limited, a quantity of tinned ham found a customer, the Defendants in this action, Semisolid (Great Britain) Limited to whoa he could sell it. His method of business was to buy and to get a certain discount and to sell at the casts price as he paid, the profit being represented by the discount. On the 13th March, 1951, a contract form, which is headed Contract number so-and-so, and bears the name and address of Leopold New borne (London) Limited, 321, High Holborn, London, W.C.1, giving the telephone numbers and the telegraphic address and on the other side be Directors Leopold Newborne and m. Newborne, addressed to Messrs Sensolid (Greet Britain) Limited runs in this way se have this day sold to you 200cases each containing 6 Sins whole cooked boneless shoulders'. Then It sets out the price and terms of delivery, and so forth, and it is signed "yours faithfully, Leopold new borne (London) Limited" There is then writtem underneath that a hieroglyphic which is Interpreted in type as being Leopold new borne. There is an acceptance slip attached to the document received from Leopold new borne (London) Limited, 321, High no corn, London: "Sale contract no. S.117 for 200 cases each containing 6 tins whole cooked boneless shoulders". The market went down and there upon Semisolid looked round for an opportunity if they could find on it, of getting out of their contract. There is nothing inherently immoral if a person can get out of a contract when the market falls if he does so They re-fused to take delivery of the goods when tendered on the ground that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phonogram Ltd v Lane
...case was decided, a number of distinctions have been introduced by Hollman v. Pullin (1884) Cababé and Ellis's Reports 254; Newborne v. Sensolid (Great Britain) Ltd. (1954) 1 Queen's Bench 45; and Black v. Smallwood in the High Court of Australia (1965) 117 Commonwealth Law Reports 51. Tho......
- Aldar for Construction and Architecture v Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Johor
-
Gregor Fisken Ltd v Mr Bernard Carl
...as agent without having a principal might be considered to be agent for themselves. (c) In Newborne v Sensolid (Great Britain) Limited [1954] 1 QB 45, Lord Goddard CJ described the principle in Schamltz v Avery as “ well established.” 99 This line of authorities leads the authors of Chitty......
-
Braymist Ltd v The Wise Finance Company Ltd
...She also submits that no notice to complete could have been served other than under condition 22. Conclusions Issue 1 46 In Newborne v Sensolid (Great Britain) Ltd [1954] 1 QB 45, a company purported to sell goods at a time when it had not been incorporated. The company's name was appended......
-
Voorinlywingskontrakte : hoofstuk 3
...die verteenwoordigingsreg in die geval van voorinlywingskontrakte, sien Griffiths 1993:241-243.10 Dixon 1969:35.11 Newborne v Sensolid 1954 1 QB 45; Black v Smallwood 1966 117 CLR 52; Hawke’s Bay Milk Corporation v Watson 1974 1 NZLR 236; Marble-stone Industries v Fairchild 1975 1 NZLR 34’......
-
The Lesotho Electronic Transactions and Electronic Commerce bill : will it replace the common law of contract as we know it?
...which identifies it as the act 'of the party'…" 52 Goodman v Eban (J) (1954) ALL ER 763, p766. 53 Newborne v Sensolid (Great Britain) LD [1954] 1QB 45. 54 Brydges (Town Clerk of Cheltenham) v Dix (1891) 7 TLR 215. 55 In Jurgers and others v Volkskas Bank Lld 1993 1() SA 538, p220, paras [E]......
-
CONCEPTUAL CONFUSION
...ignorant of such defect of title, it is good”. 75 Companies Act 2006 (c 46) (UK) s 45(1). 76Newbourne v Sensolid (Great Britain) LtdELR[1954] 1 QB 45 (CA). 77 D J Goddard, “Execution of Documents by Companies” in Dimensions in Business Finance Law (J Prebble ed) (Wellington: Butterworths, 1......
-
Incorporation
...St. Christopher and Nevis, 47 even though it 44. See Kelner v Baxter (1866) LR 2 CP 174. 45. See Newborne v Sensolid (Great Britain) Ltd [1954] 1 QB 45; Cotronic (UK) Ltd v Dezonie (t/a Wendaland Builders Ltd) [1991] BCLC 721. 46. Barbados Companies Act 1982, s 16; Trinidad and Tobago Compa......