Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Cambridge Law Journal
  4. Content listing
Journal Home

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals: Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies: Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

9363 results in The Cambridge Law Journal

Page 213 of 469

  • Set-Off and Agency

  • S. Rory Derham
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 44 / Issue 3 / November 1985
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 384-414
    Print publication:
    November 1985

  • The purpose of this article is to examine when a right to set off independent cross demands may be available in a case in which an agent acting on behalf of a principal has contracted with a third party. Three particular situations are considered. The first involves the series of cases dealing with undisclosed principals, in which the third party was not aware at the time of the contract that the person with whom he was dealing was merely acting as an agent on behalf of another. The principal subsequently sues the third party on the contract, and the question is whether the third party may bring into account a debt owing to him by the agent on a separate and independent transaction. The second situation arises when the agent, rather than the principal, is the person in whose name the action against the third party is being prosecuted. The third party may wish to set off in that action a debt owing to him by either the principal or the agent on another transaction. Finally, the question of a right to set off independent cross demands may arise in an action brought by the third party against the agent.

  • Restating the Scope of the Derivative Action

  • G. R. Sullivan
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 44 / Issue 2 / July 1985
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 236-255
    Print publication:
    July 1985

  • By equitable concession a shareholder may bring a representative action, ostensibly on behalf of himself and fellow shareholders, but in reality for the company, to permit corporate recovery against persons in a position of control who have perpetrated a fraud on the company. Such “derivative” actions form an exception to the axiom, expressed as one aspect of the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, that in matters of corporate recovery the proper plaintiff is the company itself.

  • Registration, Fraud and Notice

  • M. P. Thompson
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 44 / Issue 2 / July 1985
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 280-302
    Print publication:
    July 1985

  • For a considerable period of time, statutes have existed which require the registration of deeds, third party incumbrances affecting land, or title to the land itself. In general, the sanction for non-compliance with these registration requirements is that a purchaser for valuable consideration takes free from any interest which should have, but has not, been registered. Throughout the period when registration statutes have been in force, however, a tension has existed between literal compliance with them on the one hand, and seeking to read into them general equitable principles on the other. The effect of introducing these principles is to bind a purchaser by notice of an unregistered interest that is not protected in the appropriate manner by registration.

Page 213 of 469