A note on edictal intimation

Article English OPEN
Anderson, R.G. (2004)
  • References (35)
    35 references, page 1 of 4

    7 R Bruce Wood, in F Salinger, Factoring: the Law and Practice of Invoice Finance, 3rd edn (1999), ch 7.

    8 See O Lando, E Clive, A Prüm and R Zimmermann (eds), Principles of European Contract Law, part 3, (2003) and the commentaries to the provisions of Art 11.

    9 In Black v Scott (1830) 8 S 367 the possibility of an uncooperative debtor was recognised but not discussed.

    10 Similar to that found in the American Uniform Commercial Code. Cf UNCITRAL draft Convention on Assignment of Receivables in International Trade, 13 Mar 2001, A/CN.9/489, Annex to the draft Convention, “Priority based on registration”.

    11 H Kötz (ed), International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law vol 7, ch 13, at 82, para 90.

    12 Home v Libberton (1491) Mor 3707; Balfour, Practicks, No 41, perhaps the oldest case in Morison's Dictionary. It involved a vagrant. Why anyone would want to sue a vagrant is perplexing.

    13 This seems to be the only instance where a court officer was required for intimation of an assignation. Cf the position in France: Code civil Art 1690 and Nouveau code de procédure civile Arts 651 et seq.

    14 This was an essential element: Gordon v Forbes (1681) Mor 3768; Preston v Sir John Clark (1715) Mor 3769.

    15 Issued by the court, for which see below.

    16 Quite how this worked in detail is obscure. Failure to read at the Market Cross was fatal (Christie v Jack (1631) Mor 3712; Ewing v Rochead (1681) Mor 3803) as was a failure to read at the Pier and Shore (Stewart v Achanay (1626) Mor 3803).

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark