OpenTuition | ACCA | CIMA
Free ACCA and CIMA on line courses | Free ACCA, CIMA, FIA Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums
View ACCA F4 lectures Download F4 notes
Sign up with YouTube premium to watch our lectures Ad-free and download them to watch offline.
Specially for OpenTuition students
August 27, 2015 at 11:31 am
Can you please explain, in the case of Pender, why the court did not lift the vail as The major shareholder had transferred his 67 shares to Pender and these were not actually Penders’ shares?
August 27, 2015 at 2:02 pm
There was nothing in either law nor the articles to prevent it. What goes on within a company is almost always left up to the company to resolve – the courts are VERY reluctant to interfere. That’s not their job. Only in situations such as those talked about in the lectures will the courts get involved
October 20, 2013 at 6:55 pm
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!
August 27, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Clarke wins? Dunraven wins? What does it matter who wins? The principle of the case is that members of a company are in contract with each other
Eley case? The principle here is that the articles bind the company to the members and the members to the company. But this aspect of bindingness applies only to members and it applies only to members in their capacity AS MEMBERS and not in any other capacity (such as solicitor)
October 24, 2012 at 8:28 pm
You must be logged in to post a comment.