Comments

  1. avatar says

    Hi Sir
    Thanks alot for the lectures. But I have few questions regarding this lecture.
    1. According to Clarke v Dunraven case “The Court of Appeal held that there was a contract for the owner of The Satanita to pay Lord Dunraven compensation.” So doesn’t this mean that Clarke lost the case?
    2. In Eley’s case, if it’s in the article that Eley is appointed as the solicitor for the company, then why isn’t it valid? You mentioned that the article is the constitution; the terms which are used for the operation of the company.

    I would appreciate it if you could answer and explain this a bit. Thank You!

Leave a Reply