peek v gurney (1873 case summary) - Axtarish в Google
In the case of Peek v Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377 the Claimant purchased shares in a company in reliance on certain false statements contained in the company's prospectus; and he thereafter brought an action against the promoters of the company for rescission on the basis of misrepresentation.
27 апр. 2020 г.
Peek (plaintiff) purchased large numbers of shares in Overend and Gurney on the stock exchange in October and December. After the company's dissolution, Peek ...
This case concerns itself with the act of misrepresentation made in the prospectus. The concept of misrepresentation and fraud is given under Section 18 and 17 ...
26 янв. 2023 г. · Case study Peek v Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377 [3.121] A prospectus issued to the public by the promoters of a company contained a number of ...
5 дек. 2021 г. · He sought an indemnity against the directors, alleging misrepresentation and concealment of facts by the directors in the prospectus. Held: The ...
Оценка 5,0 (13) 6 апр. 2017 г. · Held: There was a false representation here that the gun was safe, and that is fraud. The defendant knew that the gun was to be used by the ...
14 июн. 2019 г. · Horsfall v Thomas (1862). The person mislead must be aware of the statement. It must address the party mislead. Peek v Gurney (1873). Person ...
1 сент. 2024 г. · In this torts case, the court found that to maintain an action for deceit, there must be an active misrepresentation by the defendant. Не найдено: (1873 | Нужно включить: (1873
1 сент. 2018 г. · It was held that the company owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and he could receive damages for the negligent misrepresentation.
Peek later bought his shares on the open market and lost a lot of money. He made a claim against Gurney based on the false prospectus but it was not a ...
Novbeti >

Ростовская обл. -  - 
Axtarisha Qayit
Anarim.Az


Anarim.Az

Sayt Rehberliyi ile Elaqe

Saytdan Istifade Qaydalari

Anarim.Az 2004-2023