Premium
Reluctant Bedfellows: Want of Authority and Knowing Receipt
Author(s) -
Lee Rebecca,
Ho Lusina
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
the modern law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.37
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 1468-2230
pISSN - 0026-7961
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00890.x
Subject(s) - receipt , irrationality , context (archaeology) , test (biology) , principal (computer security) , political science , law , business , law and economics , social psychology , psychology , sociology , accounting , computer science , history , computer security , paleontology , archaeology , rationality , biology
The case note examines the recent decision of the H ong K ong C ourt of F inal A ppeal in T hanakharn K asikorn T hai C hamkat ( M ahachon) v A kai H oldings L td , where L ord N euberger of A bbotsbury adopted the test of irrationality in determining whether a defaulting agent had apparent authority to act on behalf of his principal to confer benefits on a third party. His L ordship further held that a concurrent claim in knowing receipt arose against the third party, and the test of unconscionability is substantially the same as that of irrationality. The present note argues that symmetry of the two tests is not necessary, for knowing receipt and apparent authority deal with issues that are categorically different and serve different purposes. It also examines, in the context of benefits conferred upon an underlying agreement that is void, the oft‐overlooked issue as to what amounts to receipt for the purpose of knowing receipt.