Triumph at court
Series: Building ; 266(8190) 22 June 2001, 52-53(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Considers how, in the light of the judgment in "Matalan v Tokenspire", a subsidiary company can be compensated for a loss it had incurred but which had been paid for by the parent, even where the parent was not a party to the contract. Observes that it is the party which has suffered the initial damage, rather than the party that has paid to put it right, that is entitled to compensation. Also looks at joint insurance in relation to recovery of loss.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64084 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 113358-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Considers how, in the light of the judgment in "Matalan v Tokenspire", a subsidiary company can be compensated for a loss it had incurred but which had been paid for by the parent, even where the parent was not a party to the contract. Observes that it is the party which has suffered the initial damage, rather than the party that has paid to put it right, that is entitled to compensation. Also looks at joint insurance in relation to recovery of loss.