Rama Corporation Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1952
Year1952
CourtQueen's Bench Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
51 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Company agent authority - actual or ostensible?
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 8 April 2022
    ...entire contract. Estoppel under the doctrine of apparent or ostensible authority (Rama Corp Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 147) . Specifically, when the company's encourages others to believe that an agency relationship exists, and the third party relies on that co......
5 books & journal articles
  • Bibliografie
    • South Africa
    • Sabinet Transactions of the Centre for Business Law No. 2008-43, January 2008
    • 1 January 2008
    ...Ltd 1976 1 SA 299 W Railways Carriage and Iron Co v Riche 1875 LR 7 HL 653Rama Corporation Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd 1952 1 All ER 554 (KB) Rand Advance (Pty) Ltd v Scala Café 1974 1 SA 786 D Real Estate Capital Corporation v Thunder Corporation 287 N.E2d 838 (Ohio Com.Pl......
  • Creation of a Trade Mark in South African Law: a View with some Unconventional Elements
    • South Africa
    • Juta Stellenbosch Law Review No. , September 2019
    • 16 August 2019
    ...association of a company S ee the locu s classicus on the doc trine, Ram a Corporatio n Ltd v Prov ed Tin & General Inves tments Ltd [1952] 1 All ER 554 (QB) 556B-D Beuthin & Luiz B euthin’s Basic Company Law 2 ed (1992) 74 argue that onc e the memorandum and articles of as sociation of a c......
  • The Turquand rule in South African company law: A(nother) suggested solution
    • South Africa
    • Juta Journal of Corporate Commercial Law & Practice No. , May 2020
    • 22 May 2020
    ...actual 59 [1964] 2 QB 480 (CA).60 Freeman supra note 28 at 638–40. See also Rama Corporation Ltd v Proved Tin & General Investments Ltd 1952 1 All ER 554 at 556 & 558–71. 61 Oosthuizen op cit note 3 at 10; Cassim op cit note 22 at 184; L S Sealy ‘Agency principles and the rule in Turquand’s......
  • Agency and Partnership Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2016, December 2016
    • 1 December 2016
    ...& Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 at 503, Rama Corp Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 147 at 149. 24 G H L Fridman, “Variations on the Theme of Authority” (2006) 22 JCL 105 at 110; see also W Seavey, “The Rationale of Agency” (1920) 29......
  • 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