Lord Lindley said: ‘The explanation of the doctrine that an undisclosed principal can sue and be sued on a contract made in the name of another person with his authority is, that the contract is in truth, although not in form, that of the undisclosed principal himself.’
Lord Shand said; ‘There is a wide difference between an agency existing at the date of the contract which is susceptible of proof . . and an intention locked up in the mind of the contractor, which he may either abandon or act on at his own pleasure, and the ascertainment of which involves an inquiry into the state of his mind at the date of the contract.’
Earl of Halsbury LC, McNaughten L, Lord Shand, Lord Lindley
[1901] UKLawRpAC 21, (1901) AC 240
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.666308
