Smyth (Ross T.) & Company Ltd v T. D. Bailey, Son & Company

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Year1940
Date1940
CourtHouse of Lords

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
142 cases
  • Banning v Wright
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 14 June 1972
    ...I cannot myself attach this limited meaning to the expression "waiver". In Ross T. Smyth & Co. Ltd. v. Bailey, Son & Co. [1940] 3 All E.R. 60 at p. 70] Lord Wright discussed the ordinary meaning of the term, which as my noble and learned friend, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out ......
  • Toepfer (Alfred C.) v Cremer
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 March 1975
    ... ... , will not justify a charge of repudiation, see Ross Smith v. Bailey (1940) 56 T. L. R. at page 830 by Lord ... is to be determined in Lord Wright's speech in Smyth v. Bailey (1940) 3 All E. R. 60 at page 72 ; it fully ... ...
  • Hindley & Company Ltd v East Indian Produce Company Ltd (Peramataris)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • Invalid date
  • American Life Insurance Company v Sumintra
    • Guyana
    • Court of Appeal (Guyana)
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • Cases referred to in 1983
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1983 Preliminary Sections
    • 22 November 2022
    ...Series) 162 at 167. 161 Smith v. Great Western Railway (1877) 3 App. Cas. 166 229 Smyth (Ross. T) & Co. Ltd. v. Bailey, Sons & Co. (1940) 3 All E.R. 60 at 7 2 Smythe v. Wiles 1921 - 2 K B 66 2 Sobanjo v. Oke and Anor. (1954) 14 W.A.C.A. 593. 44 Sockna Momodu Allie & Ors. v. Alhadi (1952) 13......
  • Waiver of the right to judicial impartiality : comparative analysis of South African and Commonwealth jurisprudence
    • South Africa
    • Sabinet Southern African Public Law No. 28-1, January 2013
    • 1 January 2013
    ...his rights, the onus of proving waiver is strictly on the party19Per Lord Wright in Smyth (Ross T) and Co Ltd v Bailey, Sons and Co [1940] 3 All ER 60 at 67.121989 167 CLR 568.13Id 588.14Per Idigbe JSC, Ariori v Elemo (1984) 5 NCLR 1 at 18.15Aro v Fabolude (1983) 1 SCNLR 58.16As Lord Philli......
  • ARIORI & ORS. V. ELEMO & ORS.
    • Nigeria
    • DSC Publications Online Nigerian Supreme Court Cases. 1983 Cases reported in 1983
    • 22 November 2022
    ...v. Test (1922) 65 Mont. 134 35 9. Vyvyan v. Vyvyan 30 Bear 65 at 74; 54 E.R. 817 10.Smyth (Ross. T) & Co. Ltd. v. Bailey, Sons & Co. (1940) 3 All E.R. 60 at 7. 11. Smythe v. Wiles 1921 - 2 K.B. 66 12. Papadopoulos v. Padopoulos 1929 31 Probate Division 55. 13.Oshodi v. Balogun 4 W.A.C.A. 40......
  • DEMYSTIFYING THE RIGHT OF ELECTION IN CONTRACT LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...majeure notices, the gist of the dicta by Robert Goff J at 67 was about equitable estoppel although the word “waiver” was used. 95 (1940) 164 LT 102 at 106. 96 [1971] AC 850 at 882—883. 97 Supra n 30, at 28—29. 98 (1990) 170 CLR 394. 99 Ibid, at 406. 100 See quote from Lord Goff’s judgment ......