Sachs v Miklos

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date1948
Year1948
Date1948

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
52 cases
  • Lee Swee Keat and Another; Lee Tai Hoo and Another
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1987
  • Ningxia Yinchuan Rubber Factory Import And Export Corp and Others v AJ Brendon Shipping Pte Ltd And Others and another action
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 April 1998
    ...the plaintiff`s address and he had tried unsuccessfully to contact her stepfather. The learned judge referred to Sachs v Miklos & Ors [1948] 1 All ER 67 where Lord Goddard CJ said at p 68: Agents of necessity, until very modern times, were confined to two classes of persons, those who accep......
  • Munro v Willmott
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
    ... ... Alderton & Sons, Ld. [1946] K. B. 374 and Sachs v. Miklos [1948] 2 K. B. 23) that the plaintiff was entitled to damages on the basis of the value of the car on the day of judgment in the action; ... ...
  • Infolines Public Networks Ltd v Nottingham City Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 June 2009
    ... ... from its disposal will have been caused by the owner's inaction and could not be recovered by him (see the judgment of Lord Goddard, CJ, in Sachs v Miklos [1948] 2 QB 23 at page 40 —a case of bailment, but one sufficiently analogous, in my view, to provide a practical guide in the present ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Remedies: The Law of Damages. Third Edition Limiting Principles
    • 21 June 2014
    ...304 S(K) v H(JP), [2004] BCJ No 1414, 2004 BCSC 769 ........................................... 340 Sachs v Miklos, [1948] 2 KB 23, [1948] 1 All ER 67, [1948] LJR 1012 (CA) ................................................................................................ 84 Sacks v Canada Mor......
  • Compensation for Harm to Property Interests
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Remedies: The Law of Damages. Third Edition Compensatory Damages
    • 21 June 2014
    ...until 54 (1982), 18 Man R (2d) 203 (CA). 55 Alberta v Arnold , [1971] SCR 209; Asamera , above note 46; Glazerman , above note 46. 56 [1948] 2 KB 23 (CA). Compensation for Harm to Property Interests 85 some subsequent time). In effect, the owner would be given the value of the goods at the ......
  • Cases referred to in 1989 Part II
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1989. Part II Preliminary Sections
    • 29 January 1920
    ...213 S.C.O.A. Limited v. R. 0. Agana (1958) W.R.N.L.R. 141, 144. 183 Sachs v. Miklos (1948) 2 K.B. 23, 38. ......................................................................... 183 Saidu v. The State (1968) 1 All N.L.R. 124. ......48 Saidu v. The State (1982) 4 S C 41 473 Salako v. Oshun......
  • Flexibility of Damages for Conversion and Detinue
    • United Kingdom
    • Edinburgh University Press African Journal of International and Comparative Law No. , March 2009
    • 1 March 2009
    ...value of the eggs at the date of conversion and their resale value. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Sachs v Miklos4242Sachs v Miklos [1948] 2 K.B. 23 (CA). disavowed a rigid approach to the assessment of damages for conversion. In that case, a gratuitous bailee (the defendant), was constr......