Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Name: Mohmedfaizal Kadri Roll No. : D-302422 Assignment No.: 01 (Hadley v/s Baxendale, Salomon V/s Salomon, Ashbury railway carriage Case) Date: 23rd January, 2013
Judgement :
In the proceedings lower court jury founded for plaintiff and awarded 25 pounds to them. Court of Exchequer has reversed and ordered for new trial and also award should not include lost profit.
4
Conclusion :
From the analysing and discussion we can conclude that as per the rule after breach, the injured party can recover damages reasonably considered to arise naturally from a breach of contract and also damages within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contract. The main issue was that under what circumstances a breaching party should be held liable for consequential damages ? We can say that debtors are only liable for the damages foreseen which might have been foreseen at the time of the execution of the contract. When special circumstances are wholly unknown to the party who is breaking the contract and he at most could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury which would arise generally and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances from such a breach of contract. Such consequences would not in all probability like it is obvious that in the great multitude of cases of millers sending off broken shafts to third parties by a carrier. But here in the case these special circumstances were never communicated by Plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, we can conclude that the loss of profits cannot reasonably be considered such consequences of the breach of contract as could have been fairy and reasonably contemplated by both parties when they made this contract of the component.
Company went into the liquidation and liquidators are argued that the debentures used by Salomon as security for debt was invalid on the ground of fraud. The judge Mr. Vaughan Williams J. Accepted the appeal ruling that since salomon had created the company solely to transfer his business. As the principle was liable for the debts to unsecured creditors and the company was in reality his agent and he also.
Judgement :
The court were held and decision in favour of the shareholders and old man Salomons relatives. The main fact was that the shareholders were all related to old man Solomon was irrelevant in determining the corporation legimately existed as a separate entity.
Conclusion :
Thus the individuals, shareholders were not held liable for the corporations debts. The court of UK appeal of anti semetic and felt salomon was a fraud and his company was a sham but the house of lords court stated that the company was properly set up and there was no fraud and thus Salomon was distinct entity from his company and his directorship and also shareholding and his rights as a secured creditor. From the analysis we can say various exceptional circumstances have been delineated both by legislatures and the judiciary in the England and also other countries when courts can legitimately disregard a companys separate legal entity such as where crime or fraud has been committed and although salomon case is cited in court to this day and it has met with the considerable criticism.
Judgement :
4
Judgement plays a significant role, the construction of a railway as distinct from rolling stock was ultra vires. So therefore action for the breach of the alleged contract failed as it was void. So Richie cannot sue file against the company and contract will be null and void.
Conclusion :
Thus by analysing the case we can say that by applying t modern law to the Ashbury case directors committed a breach of duty by making the contract and might have been restrained by action by member of the company but as once the contract was made its validity could not be questioned provided that the making of the contract was act done by the company. By dealing with the company in good faith a person the power of the board of directors to bind the company or authorise others to do so, shall be deemed to be free of any limitation under the companys constitution. It is important for the consideration. The objection met by Sec 35A 1 that it was not such an act because the director had no power to make the contract.