翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Target Earth (album) ・ Target Earth (film) ・ Target Earth (video game) ・ Target Field ・ Target Field (Metro Transit station) ・ Target fixation ・ Target for Killing ・ Target for Terror ・ Target for Today ・ Target for Tonight ・ Target Games ・ Target girl ・ Target Group Index ・ Target hardening ・ Target Hill ・ Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns ・ Target House ・ Target House 200 ・ Target House, London ・ Target in the Clouds ・ Target income sales ・ Target indicator ・ Target Invisible ・ Target Kolkata ・ Target Lake ・ Target language ・ Target language (translation) ・ Target lesion ・ Target Logistics ・ Target Luna Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns ： ウィキペディア英語版 Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns ''Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns'' () (UKHL 10 ) is an English trusts law case, concerning the test for causation and the extent of compensation for breaches of trust. ==Facts== Target Holdings Ltd gave £1,525,000 to Redferns solicitors, ultimately to be loaned to Crowngate Developments Ltd to buy property at 60-64 Great Hampton Street, Hockley. Target Holdings Ltd would get a mortgage over the property that was bought, and Redferns were under instructions to not release the money until the purchase was completed, and the mortgage was executed. Until then, the solicitors were to hold the money on trust for Target Holdings Ltd. Crowngate, however, had orchestrated a scheme to make a fraudulent profit on the property which it was actually buying at £775,000, while reporting the purchase was for £2m. Breaching the terms of the agreement, Redferns in fact released £1,490,000 to a company called Panther Ltd before the purchase was completed. The sale went through, but the venture turned out to be a flop. Crowngate failed to repay the loan, and went into liquidation, meaning that Target Holdings Ltd only ever recovered £500,000 from the sale of the property. Target Holdings Ltd sued Redferns solicitors, arguing that it had a duty to account for the money it had wrongly paid away. Redferns argued that, even though it had breached the trust, this had nothing to do with the loss that Target Holdings Ltd had incurred. The loss was not caused by the breach. Warner J held that Redferns breached its trust. In the Court of Appeal Hirst LJ and Peter Gibson LJ〔() 1 WLR 1089〕 held that when Redferns misapplied the trust property, this generated an immediate liability as trustees to reconstitute the trust fund. That did not depend on showing that the loss would not have been suffered but for the breach. Ralph Gibson LJ dissented. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.