swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Agency - From: 1994 To: 1994
This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Olson v Gullo (1994) 17 OR (3d) 790
1994
Morden ACJO
Commonwealth, Company, Agency
(Court of Appeal for Ontario) A Mr Olson and a Mr Gullo had formed a partnership to develop a tract of land. Mr Gullo nevertheless bought and sold part of the land for his own account at a substantial profit which he planned to pocket. The trial judge held that Mr Olson was entitled to recover the whole of the profit. Held: The appeal was allowed.
Morden ACJO said that he had "concluded . . that it was contrary to principle and authority . . to deprive the defendants of their one-half share in the transaction in question". He explained: "We must, however, begin our consideration with the basic premise that the profit in question is the property of the partnership, not of all the partners except the defaulting partner. To exclude the wrongdoer would be to effect a forfeiture of his or her interest in this partnership property. The point may be understood by considering a starker form of wrongdoing - a case where a partner misappropriates partnership funds for his own benefit. In such a case I am not aware of any principle or decision to the effect that not only must the partner account to the partnership for the money but must also suffer a forfeiture of his or her interest in it. In fact, the case law of which I am aware is to the contrary."
1 Citers
Bailey v De Kerangot and Others Ind Summary, 10 January 1994
10 Jan 1994
CA
Agency
Use of inexact name of principal made agent personally liable on contract.
McCullagh v Lane Fox and Partners Ltd Gazette, 30 March 1994; Times, 25 January 1994
25 Jan 1994
QBD
Professional Negligence, Negligence, Agency
A vendor's estate agent was liable for a negligent misrepresentation to a party proceeding with a purchase relying upon what had been said, and without his own survey.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Owners of Cargo On K H Enterprise v Owners of Pioneer Container Times, 29 March 1994; Gazette, 11 May 1994; [1994] 2 AC 324
29 Mar 1994
PC
Lord Goff
Transport, Commonwealth, Contract, Agency
Owners who were claiming under a bailment must accept the terms of a sub-bailment to which it had agreed. This result is both principled and just. A sub-bailee can only be said for these purposes to have voluntarily taken into his possession the goods of another if he has sufficient notice that a person other than a bailee is interested in the goods so that it can properly be said that (in addition to his duties to the bailee) he has, by taking the goods into his custody, assumed towards that other person the responsibility for the goods which is characteristic of a bailee. This they believe to be the underlying principle.
Where an exclusive jurisdiction clause exists, a party who seeks a stay brought in breach of that agreement to refer disputes to a named forum, will have to show strong cause
Lord Goff asked whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading issued by a sub-bailee was binding on the cargo owner, and said: "Here is a ship, upon which the goods are loaded in a large number of containers; indeed, one container may contain goods belonging to a number of cargo owners. One incident may affect goods owned by several cargo owners, or even (as here) all the cargo owners with goods on board. Common sense and practical convenience combine to demand that all of these claims should be dealt with in one jurisdiction, in accordance with one system of law. If this cannot be achieved, there may be chaos. Much expense may be wasted on litigation in a number of different jurisdictions, as indeed happened in the present case, where there was litigation in eight other countries as well as Hong Kong and Taiwan. There is however no international regime designed to produce a uniformity of jurisdiction and governing law in the case of a multiplicity of claims of this kind. It is scarcely surprising therefore that shipowners seek to achieve uniformity of treatment in respect of all such claims, by clauses designed to impose an exclusive jurisdiction and an agreed governing law . . Within reason, such an attempt must be regarded with a considerable degree of sympathy and understanding . . Their Lordships do not consider that it can possibly be said that the incorporation of such a clause in a bill of lading is per se unreasonable."
1 Citers
Lease Management Services Ltd v Purnell Secretarial Services Ltd; CA 1-Apr-1994 - Times, 01 April 1994; [1994] CCLR 127
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd; HL 25-Jul-1994 - [1995] 2 AC 145; [1994] 3 All ER 506; Times, 26 July 1994; [1994] UKHL 5; [1994] 3 WLR 761
Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Company Europe Ltd v Orion Marine Insurance Underwriters Ltd; ChD 27-Oct-1994 - Times, 27 October 1994; [1995] QB 174
