Court of Appeal considers identity, capacity and loss
The question of whether a party has entered into a contractual arrangement as principal for itself or as agent for another entity can be pivotal in a contractual claim. The issue may be raised as a defence, for example, where a defendant is trying to argue that the claimant individual has not suffered the requisite loss and therefore that the claim has no teeth even if liability is made out.
Alternatively it may be raised where a defendant is trying to escape contractual liability by sheltering behind an entity with which the claimant in fact has the contractual nexus. These issues were at the centre of Muneer Hamid (t/a Hamid Properties) v Francis Bradshaw Partnership  EWCA Civ 470…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Allen & Overy briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from The Lawyer
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
At the time of its launch Accutrainee was described as a revolutionary change to the training model. Has it proved to be so? Not really.