Sagal v Atelier Bunz [2009]

Facts

  • The claimant procured sales of jewellery for the defendant
  • Although the claimant was never in control of stock, he traded in his own name

Issue

Decision

  • No

Reasoning

  • Conclusion on one’s own behalf cannot constitute concluding on another’s behalf
  • Sagal did not negotiate or conclude on Atelier’s behalf; he simply communicated orders
RELATED CASE  Poseidon Chartering BV v Marianne Zeeschip Vof [2006, ECJ]

Posted in Commercial Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 17th January 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy