Kelner v Baxter
| Kelner v Baxter | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
| Decided | 14 November 1866 |
| Citation(s) | (1866) LR 2 CP 174 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Erle CJ, Willes J, Byles J, Keating J |
Kelner v Baxter (1866) LR 2 CP 174 is a UK company law case, concerning pre incorporation contracts.
Facts
A group of company promoters for a new hotel business entered into a contract, purportedly on behalf of the company which was not yet registered, to purchase wine. Once the company was registered, it ratified the contract. However, the wine was consumed before the money was paid, and the company unfortunately went into liquidation. The promoters were sued. They argued that their liability had passed to the company, and were not personally accountable.
Prior to Incorporation Kelner v Baxter.[1866] L.R.2 CP 174 The promoters of a hotel company entered into a contract on its behalf for the purchase of wine. When the company formally came into existence it ratified the contract. The wine was consumed but before payment was made the company went into liquidation. The promoters, as agents, were sued on the contract. They argued that liability under the contract had passed, by ratification, to the company. It was held, however, that as the company did not exist at the time of the agreement it would be wholly inoperative unless it was binding on the promoters personally and a stranger cannot by subsequent ratification relieve them from that responsibility.
On the other hand, a promoter can avoid personal liability if the company, after incorporation, and the third party substitutes the original pre-incorporation contract with a new contract on similar terms. Novation, as this is called, may also be inferred by the conduct of the parties such as where the terms of the original agreement are changed.
A promoter can also avoid personal liability on a contract where he signs the agreement merely to confirm the signature of the company because in so doing he has not held himself out as either agent or principal. The signature and the contractual document will be a complete nullity because the company was not in existence (Newborne v Sensolid (Great Britain) Ltd [1954] 1 QB 45).
Kelner v Baxter (1866)
Judgment
Erle CJ held the promoters were personally liable. He said the following.[1]
| “ | I agree that if the Gravesend Royal Alexandra Hotel Company had been an existing company at this time, the persons who signed the agreement would have signed as agents of the company. But, as there was no company in existence at the time, the agreement would be wholly inoperative unless it were held to be binding on the defendants personally. The cases referred to in the course of the argument fully bear out the proposition that, where a contract is signed by one who professes to be signing “as agent,” but who has no principal existing at the time, and the contract would be altogether inoperative unless binding upon the person who signed it, he is bound thereby: and a stranger cannot by a subsequent ratification relieve him from that responsibility. When the company came afterwards into existence it was a totally new creature, having rights and obligations from that time, but no rights or obligations by reason of anything which might have been done before. It was once, indeed, thought that an inchoate liability might be incurred on behalf of a proposed company, which would become binding on it when subsequently formed: but that notion was manifestly contrary to the principles upon which the law of contract is founded. There must be two parties to a contract; and the rights and obligations which it creates cannot be transferred by one of them to a third person who was not in a condition to be bound by it at the time it was made. The history of this company makes this construction to my mind perfectly clear. It was no doubt the notion of all the parties that success was certain: but the plaintiff parted with his stock upon the faith of the defendants' engagement that the price agreed on should be paid on the day named. It cannot be supposed that he for a moment contemplated that the payment was to be contingent on the formation of the company by the 28th of February. | ” |
See also
Notes
- ↑ (1866) LR 2 CP 174, 183