The Moorcock

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Year1889
Date1889
CourtCourt of Appeal

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
377 cases
  • The Empress
    • United Kingdom
    • Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division
    • Invalid date
    ... ... Held, that, even if on the facts it could be said that the defendants invited the plaintiffs to ground their barge in the berth, there was no negligence or breach of duty on the part of the defendants and that they were not liable to the plaintiffs for the damage sustained ... The Moorcock (1889) 14 P. D. 64 and The Bearn [1906] P. 48 distinguished ... ACTION OF DAMAGE ... The plaintiffs, Henry W. Richards & Sons, were the owners of the spritsail barge Empress; the defendants were the Gosport and Alverstoke Urban District Council ... The action was brought in respect of damage ... ...
  • Dickinson v Abel
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • Invalid date
    ... ... The Moorcock (1889) 14 P.D. 64 distinguished ... The following case is referred to in the judgment: ... Moorcock, The (1889) 14 P.D. 64, C.A ... The following additional cases were cited in argument: ... Bloom v. Kinder (1958) 38 T.C. 77 ... Brocklesby v. Merricks (1934) 18 T.C. 576.Comptoir Commercial ... ...
  • Sababumi (Sandakan) Sdn Bhd v Datuk Yap Pak Leong
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • McAlister & Company Ltd; Pasuma Pharmacal Corporation
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
  • IFI Update, June 2009 - Part 1
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 14 July 2009
    ...v. Hyman [2002] 1 AC 408, at 459). That is context for the "business efficacy" test that is sometimes used (see Bowen LJ in The Moorcock (1889) 14PD 64, at Similarly, the test that the proposed implied term "goes without saying" (see Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd [1939] 2 KB 206,......
  • An LP's Right To Information In A Cayman Islands Exempted Limited Partnership
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 10 March 2020
    ...72 3 Conway applied in Oxford Legal Group Ltd v Sibbasbridge Services Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 387 4 Art. 24(1) of the ELP Law 5 The Moorcock [1889] 14 PD 64 6 Art. 25 of the ELP 7 Buckley on the Companies Act (12th Ed), pg 364 8 Section 36(3)(g) 9 [2016 (1) CILR 46]. In this case, in relation t......
2 books & journal articles
  • Implied Terms in Undisclosed Agency
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 84-3, May 2021
    • 1 May 2021
    ...typeof contract in question, thereby giving r ise to standardised rules34 which should23 ibid at [23], and see also The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64, 68; Reigate vUnion Manufacturing Co(Ramsbottom) Ltd [1918] 1 KB 592, 605; Shirlaw vSouthern Foundries (1926) Ltd [1939] 2 KB206, 227.24 ibid at [......
  • Fixed Term Employment Contracts: The Permanence of the Temporary
    • South Africa
    • Juta Stellenbosch Law Review No. , May 2019
    • 27 May 2019
    ...Labour Law 3 (1999) A8:9.8 Harper v Morgan Guarantee Trus t Co of New York , Johannesburg 2004 25 ILJ 1024 (W) 1031 A.9 The Moorcock [1889] 14 PD 64 (CA) 68.190 STELL LR 2008 2© Juta and Company (Pty) “Now an implied warranty, or as it is called, a covenant in law, as distinguished from an ......