Lovett v Carson County Homes [2009] 2 BCLC 196
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.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Lovett v Carson County Homes
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 StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Company law | Company Contracts Cases (9 pages) |
| Company law | Transactions With Outsiders Notes (24 pages) |
Company law notes fully updated for recent exams in the UK. These notes...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.