TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1953 (2) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....--Mr. Diplock, who has argued the case of the plaintiff, bringing to our attention every point which could possibly be taken, has contended that it is governed by the well, known series of cases of which Kelner v. Baxter [1866] L.R. 2 C.P. 174 is one of the earliest and perhaps the best known. That was a case in which one Kelner sold wine intending to sell it to a company which was to be formed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on Schmaltz v. A very [1851] 16 Q.B. 655, which lays down a principle, which has been acted on in other cases, notably in Harper & Co. v. Vigers Brothers 1909] 2 K.B. 549; 25 TLR 627, that where a person purports to contract as agent he may nevertheless disclose himself as being in truth a principal. If he entered into a contract as agent he can bring an action in his own name and show that he wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f one of the directors. This contract purports to be a contract by the company; it does not purport to be a contract by Mr. Newborne. He does not purport to be selling his goods but to be selling the company's goods. The only person who had any contract here was the company, and Mr. Newborn's signature merely confirmed the company's signature. The document is signed "Yours faithfully, Leopold Newb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onally or with the company. Of course, that is so, but that does not mean that the defendants are not entitled, if they so choose, to take the point that they never contracted with Mr. Newborne who was suing them. Mr. Diplock has strongly relied on the language of section 32(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1948 (Companies Act, 1948, section 32 (1): "Contracts on behalf of a company may be made as foll....