“…Mahony v. East Holyford Mining Co. (1875) L.R. 7 H.L. 869 at 893; we quote from p.893 of the latter case where Lord Hatherley said that- “Every joint stock company has its memorandum and articles of association; every joint stock company, or nearly every one, I imagine (unless it adopts the form provided by the statute, and that comes to the same thing) has its partnership deed under which it acts. Those articles of association and that partnership deed are open to all who are minded to have any dealings whatsoever with the company, and those who so deal with them must be affected with notice of all that is contained in those two documents.” That reinforces Balfour v. Ernest (supra) and Art. 82 in Bowstead on Agency (quoted above). The plaintiff must be taken to be acquainted with the Bank’s registered Articles of Association as soon as he knew that he was dealing with the Bank. Thus, on the basis that the manager apparently approved the sale on the Bank’s behalf, he was exceeding his actual authority and the plaintiff was in law fixed with notice that the manager was exceeding his authority. The Court is able to decide this appeal on the ground that the Bank was not bound by the manager’s apparent approval of the sale (which was taken as the basis of argument) and there is no need to say more. Here it was open to the Bank to refuse approval of the sale under the condition of sale, which was known to the plaintiff at the auction, and his appeal must fail”
LawCompass
… the Digital Solution Research Tool
