Southern-Gulf Marine Co. v. Camcraft: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
| court | |court= | ||
| citation | |citation= | ||
| date | |date=April 3, 1974 | ||
| subject | |subject=Business Associations | ||
| appealed_from | |appealed_from= | ||
| | |case_treatment=No | ||
| | |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= | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 01:13, September 17, 2020
Southern-Gulf Marine Co. v. Camcraft | |
Court | |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | April 3, 1974 |
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?
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.