CASE SUMMARY: PART 22

Rayfield vs. Hands [1960] Ch.1
●Company Law●
“The Articles constitute a contract between the individual members of the company, and they regulate the member’s mutual rights and duties as members.”

Reed (Inspector of Taxes) vs. Young [1984] STC 38
●Law of Partnership●
“The capital of a partnership is the aggregate of the contributions made by the partners, either in cash or in kind fro the purpose of commencing or carrying on the partnership business and intended to be risked by them therein”

Re Comptoir, Commercial Anversois vs. Power, Son & Co [1920] 1 KB 868
●Contract Law●
“The court ought not to imply a term merely because it would be a reasonable term to include if the parties had thought about the matter, or because one party, if he had thought about the matter, would not have made the contract unless the terms was included, it must be such a necessary term that both parties must have intended that it should be a term of the contract and have only not expressed it because its necessity was so obvious that it was taken for granted”

Re Falbe, Ward vs. Taylor [1901] 1Ch 523
●Land Law●
“The question of what constitutes an annexation sufficient to make the chattel part of the land must depend on the circumstances of each case, and mainly on two circumstances, as indicating the intention, viz the degree of annexation and the object of annexation”

Re Pappathi Ammal [1959] Cri LJ 724 (Madras HC, India)
●Criminal Law●
“From this case it would seem that the defense of automatism does not exist under the Penal Code, the insanity provision of s 84 being the only relevant one and applying to all cases of involuntary conduct”


Re Vandervell’s Trusts (N0 2) [1974] 3 All ER 205
●EQUITY●
“Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law of the judge who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice then equity should be called in to remedy it. Equity was introduced to mitigate the rigour of the law”

Re Young, ex parte Jones[1896] 75 LT 278
●Law of Partnership●
In this case, John agreed to lend Young £500 in consideration for the payment to Jones of £3 per week out of the profits. Pursuant to the agreement, Jones will assist in the office; have control over the money advanced and to be empowered to draw bills of exchange. He also had the right to enter into partnership within a period of seven months. Judge Williams said that, I ought to look at the agreement as a whole, and that taken as whole it negatives the existences of a partnership that it is plain that the agreement was made with reference to a completed partnership and that under it Lyod Jones had an option of entering into partnership. In spite of these clauses “which give such unusual and extended powers” to Jones, he is not a partner in the business but merely a lender and that “there was no intention of constituting a partnership.”


Reid vs. Smith [1906] 3 CLR 656
●Land Law●
“Physical attachment, beyond mere gravitation fixing the contested building to the freehold is not necessary a condition precedent of the question whether the building itself has become part of the soil”


Reigate vs. Union Manufacturing Co (Ramsbottom) Ltd [1918] 1 KB 592
●Contract Law●
“A term can only be implied if it is necessary in the business sense to give efficiency to the contract”






Rickards vs. Lothian [1913] AC 263
●Law of Torts●
“It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community”