Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Infobox Case Brief
| | |
| |court=
| |
| |citation=
| |
| |date=April 3, 1974
| |
| |subject=Business Associations
| |
| |appealed_from=
| |
| |overturned=
| |
| |partially_overturned=
| |
| |reaffirmed=
| |
| |questioned=
| |
| |criticized=
| |
| |distinguished=
| |
| |cited=
| |
| |followed=
| |
| |related=
| |
| |facts=SGM contracted w/ Camcraft to purchase a 156 supply vessel. The K was a form K from Camcraft. K had a provision that said the owner (SGM) was a citizen of the US within meaning of Shipping act of 1916. SGM later told Camcraft that they were a corporation of Cayman Isles of British West Indies, and that would ratify, confirm, and adopt the K. Camcraft defaulted on K obligation.
| |
| |procedural_history=Trial judge held that K needs 2 parties, and SGM was incorporated after signing day of K, so K invalid, and was not a Texas Corp.
| |
| |issues=Can K be found invalid because there was no such Corp. in existence at the time of signing?
| |
| |arguments=
| |
| |holding=No, D still made agreement & intended to enter into a K.
| |
| |judgment=
| |
| |reasons=Where a party has contracted with a corporation, and is sued upon the K, neither is permitted to deny the existence . . . of such corp." If situation was reversed and SMG tried to get out of K, Camcraft could hold them to it.
| |
| |rule=
| |
| |comments=
| |
| |case_text_links=
| |
| |Court_opinion_parts=
| |
| }}
| |
