- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
1)Facts: The articles provided for one vote per ten shares, with no member
to have more than 100 votes. A member with more than 1,000
shares transferred the surplus to a nominee and directed him how to
vote. The chairman refused to accept the nominee’s votes.Held: The right to vote was enforceable against the company and should
have been recognised by the company as a breach of the articles.Sir can you please explain me the above case? Here vote of nominee was enforceable?
And what was the breach of article here?2) Sir actually I do not understand when both and/or conjunction is used in a sentence. Therefore I was getting confused in breach of condition and breach of representation. So now after your explanation what I have understood is that
-In Breach of condition innocent party can
Either
a) treat the contract as terminated and claim damages
OR
b) only claim damagesAm I right?
– In Breach of representation innocent party can
Either
a) treat the contract as rescinded and claim damages
OR
b) only claim damagesAm I right?
“And what was the breach of article here?”
The breach was by the company, acting through the chairman, because the nominee’s votes were not being counted even though the nominee was registered as a member in his own name
Where an answer such as mine says …
“you can claim termination and / or damages”
that mans that you can
1) claim termination and damages, or
2) claim termination, or
3) claim damages
So, specifically to answer your questions, No and No
- The topic ‘Pender v Lushington (1877)’ is closed to new replies.