Southern-Gulf Marine Co. v. Camcraft: Difference between revisions
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (1 revision imported: Import of multiple Business Association case briefs) |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
| court = | |||
| citation = | |||
| date = <!-- example: "April 3, 1974" --> | |||
| subject = Business Associations | |||
| appealed_from = | |||
| decision_by = | |||
| joined_by = | |||
| concurrence = | |||
| dissent = | |||
| concur_dissent = | |||
| overturned = | |||
| partially_overturned = | |||
| reaffirmed = | |||
| questioned = | |||
| criticized = | |||
| distinguished = | |||
| cited = | |||
| followed = | |||
| related = | |||
}} | |||
{{Court opinion part | |||
| opinion_type = <!-- "majority," "plurality," "unanimous," "concurrence," "dissent," OR "concur/dissent" --> | |||
| written_by = | |||
| joined_by = | |||
}} | |||
'''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. | |||
'''Issue''': Can K be found invalid because there was no such Corp. in existence at the time of signing? | |||
'''Holding''': No, D still made agreement & intended to enter into a K. | |||
'''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. | |||
Revision as of 06:38, October 18, 2019
| Southern-Gulf Marine Co. v. Camcraft | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | |
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.
Issue: Can K be found invalid because there was no such Corp. in existence at the time of signing?
Holding: No, D still made agreement & intended to enter into a K.
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.
