Legal justification - constructive notice, Business Law and Ethics

Legal justification - Constructive notice:

The legal justification for this rule is that since the company's public documents in its file at the Companies Registry are available there for inspection by any interested member of the public he should have gone to the Registry, asked for the Company's file, inspect the contents and, having found the memorandum of association, read the objects clause in order to ascertain whether the proposed contract is consistent with the company's objects. He would then have realised that the contract was not within the company's objects. If he fails to do so and it happens that the concluded contract was neither expressly nor impliedly within the company's objects, he will be regarded as having been aware that the contract was ultra vires. He cannot therefore be allowed to enforce it. The "constructive notice' rule may be likened to the old adage, "you can take a donkey to the river but you cannot force it to drink", but with the addition that, on your way back home, you would be entitled to tell the donkey: "Since you have simply refused to drink for no apparent reason, I will take it that you have drunk for today. I will therefore not take you to the river again today but will do so tomorrow when the drinking time comes".

There appears to be no moral justification for allowing a person contracting with a company to rely on his own inaction as the basis for instituting legal proceedings against the company. It is rather tempting to say that the law, like God, protects only those who also protect themselves.

The only plausible criticism that could be made against the constructive notice rule is its assumption that a potential contracting party who reads a company's objects will be able to make the correct legal conclusion regarding the vires of the proposed transaction, and its refusal to validate the transaction in cases where the party mistakenly believed the proposed contract to be intra vires the company.

The fact that a perusal of the company's objects clause does not guarantee its correct interpretation is amply demonstrated by a number of English cases in which judges of the High Court, having read a disputed clause, concluded that the transaction was intra vires but the decision was later on reversed by the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. If such senior judges can differ over the vires of a particular transaction, why should an ordinary businessman, or his legal advisor, be expected to decide the matter correctly?

A close study of some of the relevant English cases pertaining to this issue, particularly the Ashbury case, seem to indicate that the decision of the higher court which finally disposed of the case was "correct" only in the sense that the higher court, being constitutionally mandated to make the final decision, also made the "correct" decision.

There seems to be no legal justification for retention of the constructive notice rule. The fact that a person intending to contract with a company read the company's objects does not guarantee that he will interpret it correctly. And there appears to be no moral justification for blaming a person for not making a decision that was beyond his technical competence to make.

Posted Date: 1/12/2013 2:36:38 AM | Location : United States







Related Discussions:- Legal justification - constructive notice, Assignment Help, Ask Question on Legal justification - constructive notice, Get Answer, Expert's Help, Legal justification - constructive notice Discussions

Write discussion on Legal justification - constructive notice
Your posts are moderated
Related Questions
Judicial Control: Conversely the courts can declare any law made as subsidiary legislation to be invalid or unacceptable under the ultra vires doctrine. Thus the law may be de

Intent to defraud the Italian creditor: The company owed money to trade creditors and also had outstanding against it a large claim for breach of contract which it disputed (t

Explain The criminal jurisdiction The criminal jurisdiction is exercised on the basis of the following: 1. Nationality 2. Territory 3. Universal jurisdiction and 4. Specifi

Dishonour by Non-Acceptance The drawee is not prepared to meet the bill, such he will return it for the holder by means of a note to this effect, such the bill is then so said

Compulsory winding up: At the hearing other creditors of the company may oppose the petition.  If so, the court is likely to decide in favour of those to whom the larger amoun

writhe some stetment about morality of international context

Explain the term RECOGNITION RECOGNITION The term Recognition under international law means and involves the acceptance or acknowledgment of the existence by a State of an

Analyze the differences between a proposal and an invitation to treat and discuss the rules to determine the point of time on which an agreement is reached. Using the latest Malays

QUESTION (a) What do you understand by the term misconduct in employment law. How does the English definition of misconduct differs from the French definition of misconduct?

Articles of association: The articles of association cannot absolve the auditors from any obligation imposed upon them by the statute....  Under the statute the members of the