Roger Williams and others v Redcard Ltd and others [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2011Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2011] EWCA Civ 466, 20 April 2011. Considers whether a limited company had properly executed a property sale contract or not. Appellant W alleged that respondent R had not properly executed a sale contract to W in respect of R's interest in a building which R was the freeholder: the contract did not state that signatories signed on behalf of Redcard. "Held": CA decided R had properly executed the contract. Recommended that care must be taken to comply with formalities to avoid expensive litigation.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 154585-2001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
[2011] EWCA Civ 466, 20 April 2011. Considers whether a limited company had properly executed a property sale contract or not. Appellant W alleged that respondent R had not properly executed a sale contract to W in respect of R's interest in a building which R was the freeholder: the contract did not state that signatories signed on behalf of Redcard. "Held": CA decided R had properly executed the contract. Recommended that care must be taken to comply with formalities to avoid expensive litigation.