Publication Type
Transcript
Version
acceptedVersion
Publication Date
3-2004
Abstract
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Halley v. The Law Society [2003] EWCA Civ 97 has the potential to muddy the waters of the law of rescission. It is a fundamental principle that a fraudulent misrepresentation renders a contract voidable at the instance of the representee (Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew [1998] Ch. 1, 22). Modern authorities suggest that the representee does not have any proprietary interest in property transferred by him pursuant to the contract before rescission (see Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew [1998] Ch. 1, 22-23; Twinsectra Ltd. v. Yardley [1999] Lloyd's Rep. Bank. 438, 46)
Keywords
Fraud, Contracts, Attorneys, Business structures, Misrepresentation, Proprietary interest, Bank accounts, Bank fraud, Investment companies
Discipline
Banking and Finance Law | Bankruptcy Law
Publication
Cambridge Law Journal
Volume
63
Issue
1
First Page
30
Last Page
35
ISSN
0008-1973
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP): HSS Journals
Citation
TANG, Hang Wu.
Proprietary relief without rescission. (2004). Cambridge Law Journal. 63, (1), 30-35.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2390
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.