Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 20


     
     1        Fry L.J.:
     2
     3             "I have come to the same conclusion.  I see no
     4             reason why the secretary should be held to have
     5             had authority to make these representations so
     6             as to bind the company by way of estoppel.  No
     7             evidence was given of the existence of such
     8             authority.  It is suggested that the Court will
     9             take cognizance of the nature of the office of a
    10             secretary, and that such an authority is
    11             ordinarily incidental thereto.  I do not think
    12             that is so."
    13
    14        Lopes L.J., on the next page:
    15
    16             "In this case we are asked to infer from the
    17             mere fact that a person was the secretary of a
    18             tramway company that he had authority to make
    19             representations with regard to the financial
    20             situation and relations of the company, although
    21             there was no evidence whatever of any express
    22             authority nor any evidence that the making of
    23             such representations was within the scope of his
    24             duty."
    25
    26        I emphasise those words, because it is the second time they
    27        have come up.
    28
    29             "It seems to me that it would be most
    30             unreasonable to make the inference which we are
    31             asked to make."
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:  Can I ask a question ---
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    36
    37   MR. MORRIS:  -- for clarification?  You know, to my uninformed
    38        legal mind here, these seem to be relating to whether --
    39        this is not whether it is admissible as hearsay, but
    40        whether such a statement would bind the Company as, you
    41        know, you cannot go beyond it as an admission; and it does
    42        not seem to me that is what this particular case is about.
    43        We are talking about whether something is admissible or
    44        not.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I suggest you do is just listen to the
    47        way Mr. Rampton puts it, and then get your points together,
    48        because it may be that he is quoting this case on the point
    49        of who has authority ---
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- to make statements and who does not.
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  That would be an authority to be what would be
    56        binding on the Company, such as, for example, we have a
    57        formal admission from McDonald's -----
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do not argue it now.  I am just trying to
    60        help you by explaining the way I understand it.  One of the

Prev Next Index