CameraIcon

SearchIcon

MyQuestionIcon

1

You visited us 1 times! Enjoying our articles? Unlock Full Access!

Sangha

Solve.One Ble...

Question

Solve.
One Blenkam, knowing that Blenkarn & Co. was a reputed customers of Lindsay & Co., placed an order with Lindsay & Co. by imitating the signature of Blenkarn & Co. The goods were then sold to Cundy, an innocent buyer. A suit was filed by Lindsay & Co. against Cundy for recovery of goods. Discuss the legal position.

Open in App

Solution

Solution:
Section to which the given problem relates: Section 72.
Decision:
Cundy didn't get a good title and hence he must return the goods or make payment for the same.
Reason:
There was no contract between Lindsay & Co. and Cundy as Lindsay never intended to contract with Blenkarn.
Leading case: Cundy v. Lindsay & Co.

Suggest Corrections

thumbs-up

0

Similar questions

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:
(1) That he was prosecuted by the defendant
(2) That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff
(3) That the prosecution was initiated against him without any just or reasonable cause
(4) That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact
(5) That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to security of his property
FACTS: A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co., for personal injuries. Subsequently, Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co. prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true?
DECIDE.

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLES: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:
1. That he was prosecuted by the defendant.
2. That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff.
3. That the prosecution was instituted against him without any just or reasonable cause.
4. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.
5. That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to security of his property.
FACTUAL SITUATION : A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co. for personal injuries. Subsequently Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co, prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true?

Q. An unregistered firm sold goods to Won credit. On the expiry of the term of credit, the firm filed a suit against W for the recovery of the amount due from W. Will the firm succeed? What difference would it make if immediately after filing the suit, the firm got itself registered?

Q. Solve.
X sold his business to V but this fact was not known to an old customer Z. Z placed an order for certain goods to X by name. V supplied the goods to Z. Is there a valid contract?

Q. Solve.
Woman by falsely misrepresenting her to be wife of a well-known Baron (a millionaire), tained two pearl necklaces from a firm of jewellers on the pretext of showing them to her husband before buying. She pledged them with a broker, who in good faith paid her Rs. 1,00,000. A suit was filed by the jeweller against the broker. Discuss the legal position.

View More

Join BYJU'S Learning Program

similar_icon

Related Videos

lock

The Sangha

HISTORY

Watch in App

explore_more_icon

Explore more

Standard VI History

Join BYJU'S Learning Program

CrossIcon