Statute of Frauds
Statute of Frauds legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Statute of Frauds-Agent contracting in his own name-Circumstance known to other Party-Agreement satisfies the statute. An agent who contracts in his own name does not cease to be contractually bound because it is proved that the other party knew when the contract was made that he was acting as agent. So the agreement which is made in his name does not cease in that event to contain the names of contracting parties and therefore does not cease to satisfy the statute.
"Statute of Frauds", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124946693
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Statute of Frauds"
P L D 1950 Privy Council 67
ABDUL KARIM BASMA-Appellant Versus GLADYS MURIEL WEEKES and others-Respondents
Court: Case-law discussed.P
Present : Lord Simonds, Lord Morton of Henryton and Sir Madhavan Nair Versus Privy Council Appeal No. 48 of 1946, decided on 4th February 1948, from the Supreme Court of Fiji.
Court:P L D 1954 Privy Council 77
AMOAH ABABIO, Ohene of Asamangkese representing the Stool of Asamangkese and another‑Appellants Versus JOHN EDMUND TURKSON‑ Respondent
Court:P L D 1971 Supreme Court 784
MESSRS JAMAL JUTE BALING & Co., DACCA- Appellant Versus MESSRS M. SARKIES & Sorts, DACCA-Respondent
Court:P L D 1995 Lahore 124
MUHAMMAD ALI and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD AMIR ‑‑‑ Respondent
Court:P L D 1968 Karachi 515
NOOR HUSAIN NATHA‑Appellant Versus CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY‑Respondent
Court:1968 P T D 405
NOOR HUSAIN NATHA‑Appellant Versus CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY‑Respondent
Court: Karachi (Pakistan)P L D 1963 Supreme Court 296
THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN‑ — Appellant Versus DR. AZIZUL ISLAM‑Respondent
Court: (b) Signature‑(Index of authentication of document)--‑Order requisitioning property under S. 3, East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act (X111 of 1948), read with rr. 2 & 3, East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Rules, 1949: Authenticated by rubber‑stamp facsimile of Requisitioning Authority‑Valid execution and proper making of order "if it was consciously made with intention of authenticating same"‑Practice, however, not approved in "every case"‑Recourse to rubber‑stamp not unreasonable or unwarranted where large number of orders are required to be signed‑Illegibility of signature or facsimile no ground for holding that it was no signature at all‑Use of printed form does not render order bad‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 57 (7)‑Judicial notice of signature of gazetted officer Words and Phrases ‑ "Making" of document ‑‑ "Signed" ‑Jenkins v. Gaisford and Thring (1863) 3 Sw. & T 93 ; Blades v. Lawrence L R 9 Q B 374 and Bennett v. Brumfitt (1867) L R 3 Common Pleas, p. 28 ref., Ajit Kumar Das v. The Province of East Pakistan P L D 1959 Dacca 586 approved; Province of East Pakistan and others v. Jogesh Chandra Lodh and others 11 D L R S C 4 11 considered and Stroud's "Judicial Dictionary", Third Edition Volume IV reversed.1984 P T D 87
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAWALPINDI Versus NOON SUGAR MILLS LTD.
Court: High CourtP L D 1966 (W
SHER MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: