Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
'Great investments' and good returns: Knowing receipt as an equitable wrong independent of contract
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
'Great investments' and good returns: Knowing receipt as an equitable wrong independent of contract
Do you wish to request the book?
'Great investments' and good returns: Knowing receipt as an equitable wrong independent of contract
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
'Great investments' and good returns: Knowing receipt as an equitable wrong independent of contract
2023
Overview
Obiter dicta by Lord Nicholls in 'Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC' suggest that in circumstances where a director contracts on a company's behalf and transfers company property pursuant to that contract, any resultant claim is to be singularly determined by principles of company and agency law. Therefore, a claim in equity for knowing receipt is irrelevant. Whilst a Full Federal Court in 'Great Investments Ltd v Warner' appears to adopt a similar approach, this article argues that the Australian judgment is distinguishable, and seeks to retain knowing receipt as a viable and important source of liability whether or not property is transferred to a knowing recipient pursuant to a contract binding on the company. It argues that there are clear doctrinal reasons that justify knowing receipt's characterisation as a freestanding equitable wrong, as well as the availability of remedies reflective of this wrong that are more extensive than the return of the value of the misappropriated property. Nonetheless, it recognises the practical difficulties that a subsisting contract may pose to a successful pursuit of a claim for knowing receipt.
