This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
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) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Business Associations | |subject=Business Associations | ||
|appealed_from= | |appealed_from= | ||
|overturned= | |overturned= | ||
|partially_overturned= | |partially_overturned= |
Latest revision as of 03:44, July 14, 2023
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.