Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Lovett v Carson County Homes

[2009] 2 BCLC 196

Case summary last updated at 22/01/2020 15:04 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Lovett v Carson County Homes

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 Fingalldoes 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.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Company law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Company law Notes

Company law Notes >>