Rama Corporation Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1952 |
| Court | Queen'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
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
49 cases
-
Freeman & Lockyer (A Firm)(Plaintiffs) Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd and Shiv Kumar Kapoor (Defendants)
...G. M. B. H. v. Sohenkers (1926 volume 2 King's Bench Division, page 450) and also by Mr Justice Slado in Rama Corporation Limited v. Proved Tin & General Investments Limited (1952 volume 1 All England Law Reports, page 554). If Houghton's case does establish the broad proposition contended ......
- Cheng Hang Guan v Perumahan Farlim (Penang) Sdn Bhd
-
Sports Direct International Plc v Rangers International Football Club Plc David King (Additional Respondent)
...in that capacity to have usual authority to make these statements. A single director generally has no authority to bind the company see Rama v Proved Tin [1952] 2 QB 147 and Healy-Hutchinson v Bray Head Ltd [1968] 1QB 549 C.A. 58 There is no evidence to show that Rangers held Mr King out as......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Holland; Re Paycheck Services 3 Ltd
...being de facto directors, and one being de facto secretary." 65 Slade J, in Rama Corpn Ltd v Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 147, considered that the point in Mahony was whether the bank was entitled to treat the persons who were described in the mandate as directors. Th......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Company agent authority - actual or ostensible?
...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
...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
...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
...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
...& 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