Summary of Farquaharson bros v King case

Spread the love

Farquaharson bros v King

Summary of Facts: the owners of goods, who were timber merchants, employed a clerk who was authorized to sign delivery orders on the strength of which timber would be released to customers.

Judgment: the court held that acts or conducts which were no more than allowing another to hold possession of the goods were not sufficient to give rise to the plead of estoppel by conduct. It is argued that some positive actions which were misleading or gave away the ownership may be necessary. Estoppel can be categorized into two components which are representation and negligence. Estoppel by conduct is a positive representation by conduct of mouth or by gesture, while negligence is the non-action or omission to represent a statement which should be made.

Hey There, you’re welcome once again to (short for Answer my Questions) blog, you can type the name of any case you’re looking for in the search box below or above as we’ve made summary of many cases available. have a nice time.


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

72 − 68 =