Hamid v Francis Bradshaw Partnership
19th June, 2013
The recent case of Hamid v Francis Bradshaw Partnership has highlighted the need to ensure the signatory of a document qualifies the context he is signing in.
In the above case, the signatory had signed his name above and below the trading name, Moon Furniture. The other party to the contract interpreted this as meaning that Dr Hamid was signing as an individual, with the trading name Moon Furniture, however, this was not the case. Moon Furniture was actually the trading name of Chad Furniture Store Limited (“Chad”).
No reference had been made to the fact Moon Furniture was in fact a trading name of a limited company. Dr Hamid did not qualify his signature or make it clear that the contract did not bind him personally; therefore Dr Hamid personally was held to be a party to the contract.
It is therefore important to ensure you make the capacity in which you are signatory clear. If you do not do this you could find that you inadvertently become a contracting party. Further to this, had Dr Hamid have been found to have signed on behalf of Chad, rather than as an individual, the company could have faced fines for failing to comply with the Companies Act 2006. This was because the company name and address were not present on the document, as is required by the Companies Act.
Any contractual agreement should therefore be considered properly and the relevant advice sought to ensure that it is clear who the contracting parties are and to ensure the document complies with the relevant requirements of the Companies Act.
For more information please contact John Devoy on 01244 405523 or email [email protected]
You might also be interested in...
1st June, 2020
The Court of Appeal recently held that ambiguity in a dismissal letter was a factor in permitting a... Read More »