This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Lovett v Carson County Homes [2009] 2 BCLC 196

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:05

Judgement for the case Lovett v Carson County Homes

Table Of Contents

  • Company had two directors, X and Y. Was agreed that X would take over financial side of business, and Y the day-to-day operations of business.

  • However from time to time, and with consent of Y, X would forge Y’s signatures on certain financial documents. One such document was sought to be upheld against company, and Y challenged this on grounds that he had not put his signature to it.

Held

  • Rule in Great Fingall does not apply where agent who made forged documents acted with ostensible authority.

  • Where this is case, s.44(5) acts to make contract binding on company. 

  • Additionally, is ‘much force’ in view that s.44(5) has displaced rule in Great Fingall.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Lovett v Carson County Homes

Company law Notes
805 total pages
1071 purchased

Company law notes fully updated for recent exams in the UK. These notes...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Company law Notes
805 total pages
1071 purchased

Company law notes fully updated for recent exams in the UK. These notes...