Proprietary relief without rescission

Proprietary relief without rescission

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Halley v. The Law Society [2003] EWCA Civ 97 has the potential to muddy the waters of the law of rescission. It is a fundamental principle that a fraudulent misrepresentation renders a contract voidable at the instance of the representee (Bristol and West Build...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: TANG, Hang Wu
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2004
Subjects:
Fraud
Contracts
Attorneys
Business structures
Misrepresentation
Proprietary interest
Bank accounts
Bank fraud
Investment companies
Banking and Finance Law
Bankruptcy Law
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2390
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4348/viewcontent/4509067__1_.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
Description
Summary:The decision of the Court of Appeal in Halley v. The Law Society [2003] EWCA Civ 97 has the potential to muddy the waters of the law of rescission. It is a fundamental principle that a fraudulent misrepresentation renders a contract voidable at the instance of the representee (Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew [1998] Ch. 1, 22). Modern authorities suggest that the representee does not have any proprietary interest in property transferred by him pursuant to the contract before rescission (see Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew [1998] Ch. 1, 22-23; Twinsectra Ltd. v. Yardley [1999] Lloyd's Rep. Bank. 438, 46)

Similar Items