Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:55:38.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bell Houses Ltd. v. City Wall Properties Ltd.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

G. Procaccia
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1967 , pp. 111 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1965] 3 All E.R. 427.

2 See Thompson, James H., “Ultra Vires etc.” (1966) J. Bus. L. 66Google Scholar; Wedderburn, K. W., “What is the Point of Ultra Vires” (1966) 29 M.L.R. 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Polack, Kenneth, “Company Law—Allegation that a Contract is Ultra Vires the Plaintiff etc.” (1966) Camb. Law R. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; G. Procaccia, “Bell Houses v. City Wall” (1966) 22 HaPraklit 148 (in Hebrew).

3 [1966] 2 All E.R. 674.

4 [1965] 3 All E.R. 427, 430.

5 (1875) L.R. 7 H.L. 653.

6 [1965] 3 All E.R. 427, 435.

7 Ibid. 436.

8 Ibid. 437.

9 Ibid. 438.

10 (1882) 20 Ch.D. 169 at 188.

11 [1965] 3 All E.R. 438.

12 Kenneth Polack, loc. cit. 28: Treitel, G. H. (1961) 77 L.Q.R. 83, 86Google Scholar; K. W. Wedderburn, loc. cit. 193; J. H. Thompson, loc. cit. 66.

13 Street, H., The Doctrine of Ultra Vires, London, 1930, 30Google Scholar.

14 Gower, L. C. B., Modern Company Law, 2nd. ed., London, 1957, 91Google Scholar.

15 Pennington, Robert R., The Principles of Company Law, London, 1959, 70Google Scholar.

16 “Who Can Plead that a Contract is Ultra Vires” (1961) 24 M.L.R. 715.

17 Ibid. 718.

18 Ibid. 720.

19 [1918] A.C. 514, 520.

20 [1966] 2 All E.R. 674, 690.

21 [1960] 3 All E.R. 244, 245.

22 See G. H. Treitel, loc. cit. at 86 n. 20.

23 Report of the Committee on Company Law Amendment, London, June, 1945, Cmd. 6659, 10.

24 L. C. B. Gower, op. cit. 87.

25 M. P. Furmston, loc. cit. 718 and Re Birbeck Permanent Benefit Building Society [1912] 2 Ch. 193, 222.

26 L. C. B. Gower, op. cit. 82.

27 Cohen Report, 9, 10.

28 See J. H. Thompson, loc. cit. 69; K. W. Wedderburn, loc. cit. 194–95; K. Polack, loc. cit. 30; G. Procaccia, loc. cit. 148.

29 J. H. Thompson, loc. cit. 68.

30 K. W. Wedderburn, loc. cit. 192.

31 [1966] 2 All E.R. 683.

32 Ibid. 686.

33 Ibid. 687.

34 Ibid. 686 per Danckwerts L.J.

35 Ibid. 683 per Danckwerts L.J.; see also Salmon L.J., 688.

36 A peculiar use of the limitations of the objects-clause has recently been witnessed in Israel by the present writer. A certain manufacturing company was desirous of promoting the registration of a new company intended to act as agent and distributor of the goods produced by the manufacturing company. The latter wanted an undertaking by the new company not to act as agent for other persons or as a distributor of goods not produced by the manufacturing company. The legal adviser of the manufacturing company advised that such an agreement would be void as contrary to the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Law in force in Israel but suggested that the same result could in practice be obtained by a severe restriction of the objects-clause of the proposed company. Any activity by the new company outside its objects would be void and the company could be restrained from carrying it on, without the interposition of any restrictive agreement or restrictive arrangement.

37 Yadin, U., “Preliminary Agreements Ultra Vires the Company” (1956) 12 HaPraklit 243, 248 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar.

38 U. Yadin, ibid.; Hornstein, George D., Corporation Law and Practice, St. Paul, 1959, Vol. 2, para. 563, p. 32Google Scholar; Ballentine, , On Corporations, Chicago, 1946, 265Google Scholar.

39 Report of the Committee on Company Law Amendment, Cmd. 6659, London, 1945, 10.

40 Report of the Company Law Committee, Cmd. 1749, London, 1962, 3.

41 Ibid.

42 Final Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Working and Administration of the present Company Law of Ghana, Accra, 1961, 35–36 and 181; sec. 16 (2) (b) and sec. 247 (2) (a).

43 Ibid. 42.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Report of the Committee on Company Law Reform, Jerusalem, 1965, 5 (in Hebrew), Recommendations (l)–(2).

47 See on this point, Ballantine, loc. cit. 264.

48 Re Jon Beauforte [1953] Ch. 131; see also the present case and G. D. Hornstein, op. cit. vol. 2, para. 562, p. 32.

49 See for Israel, the strong words of Cohn J. in Somech v. Mashav (1965) vol. 3, 19 P.D. 55.

50 G. D. Hornstein, op. cit. para. 562, p. 29.

51 Ballantine, loc. cit. 248; see also G. D. Hornstein, ibid.

52 Ballantine, loc. cit. 250; See also G. D. Hornstein, op. cit. para. 562, p. 30.

53 Ballantine, loc. cit. 248; see also G. D. Hornstein, op. cit., para. 262, p. 28.