Sowler v Potter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1939 |
| Court | King'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
8 cases
-
Gallie v Lee
...in truth they were deeds of mortgage to a stranger, Whitaker. He pleaded non est factum, but the plea did not succeed. 19 The case of Sowler v. Potter, (1940 1 K.B. p. 271) would appear at first sight to give some support to this distinction. Sowler's agent let a room to a woman under the ......
-
Clarion Ltd v National Provident Institution
...the contract in Lindsay v. Cundy (1876�8) 1 Q.B.D. 348, 355; 3 App. Cas. 459, was voidable and not void; and on which the lease in Sowler v. Potter [1940] 1 K.B. 271 was, in my opinion, voidable and not void." Neither the facts on which Solle v. Butcher was decided nor that passage in Denni......
-
Lewis v Averay
...law. I know that it was quoted by Lord Haldane in Lake v. Simmons, 1927 A.C. at page 501, and, as such, misled Mr. Justice Tucker in Sowler v. Potter, 1940 1 K.B. 271, into holding that a lease was void whereas it was really voidable. But it has given rise to such refinements that it is ti......
-
DPP v Dillon
...LAKE V SIMMONS 1927 AC 487 ANSON PRINCIPLES OF THE ENGLISH LAW OF CONTRACT AND OF AGENCY IN ITS RELATION TO CONTRACT 25ED SOWER V POTTER 1940 1 KB 271 POSTAL & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ACT 1983 S98(2) AG V O'BRIEN 1965 1 IR 142 DPP V KENNY 1990 2 IR 110 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGH......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Fixed Charges Over Book Debts
...Ltd vEdridge, Merrett & Co Ltd(1897) 14TLR 98). In the second situation, however,the co ntractwould always bevoid: see SowlervPotter [1939] 4 All ER 478. It i s submitted that these two situations should really be dealt with inthe same way. Indeed, the correctness of the decision i nSowler ......
-
Identity Mistakes: A Missed Opportunity?
...Ltd vEdridge, Merrett & Co Ltd(1897) 14TLR 98). In the second situation, however,the co ntractwould always bevoid: see SowlervPotter [1939] 4 All ER 478. It i s submitted that these two situations should really be dealt with inthe same way. Indeed, the correctness of the decision i nSowler ......