Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Denning » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:45 pm

atticus wrote:if you are so worried, advise Bob (or Sarah) to drop the X.

But you have still got the wrong end of the stick, and that rarely makes for good advice.

You appeared not to be looking at the individual in the stated legislature.

Let me rephrase it. Are you saying there is no offence committed if a sole trader in person of Sarah Lewis instead of using her name as "Sarah Lewis" in a contractual agreement the name "Sarah Lewis Company" or "Sarah Lewis Enterprises" was used as a party to the contractual agreement?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:57 pm

Correct. The use of the terms "Company" and "Enterprises" are not prohibited under sections 1193 or 1194. The exemption under s.1192 is therefore irrelevant.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Denning » Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:47 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:Correct. The use of the terms "Company" and "Enterprises" are not prohibited under sections 1193 or 1194. The exemption under s.1192 is therefore irrelevant.

If the exemption is irrelevant under what law can Sarah Lewis enforced any agreement reached in the name of "Sarah Lewis Company" when the other party declared that "Sarah Lewis Company" is a fictitious name and as such Sarah Lewis does not have the right standing to the agreement, otherwise the other party declared that any agreement reached under the name of "Sarah Lewis Company" is declared void ab initio.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby atticus » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:14 pm

I suspect that whatever point is being made by the other party, it is not being made under this section. Has anyone asked this other party to state the grounds on which the assertion is made? You can then investigate whether that assertion has any merit.

There is no reason I can see why Sarah can not trade under the name Sarah Lewis Company or the like.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Denning » Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:44 pm

The Counter-Party appeared to believe that the agreement was entered in good faith with a company as in "Sarah Lewis Company" and not with an individual as in "Sarah Lewis" as a result the Counter-Party refused to pay Miss Lewis her contingency fee for all the consultancy services she rendered to the Counter-Party.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby atticus » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:00 pm

Did this person mention s1192, or this something that you have come up with?

The argument, as you describe it, sounds very weak.

Have you looked at Sarah's contract with this person who now doesn't want to pay? Will he write a cheque to Sarah Lewis Company? I bet not. I bet he wants to get out of paying anything.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Denning » Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:20 pm

The Agreement stated between the Counter Party (represented by his Chairman - "name of Chairman") and "the company Sarah Lewis Company" represented by its legal representative -Sarah Lewis. The contract then showed two signatories one on behalf of the "Counter-Party" and the other on behalf of "Sarah Lewis Company".
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby dls » Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:11 am

It is sensible for a parry to a contract to be sure that the identification is clear.

Jean Stick (a person) is entitled to trade under any name provided
1) no restricted word is improperly used, and
2) there is no passing off or trade mark infringement.

If Jean Stick trades as 'Sticky Jeans' then she just uses Sticky Jeans at all times save where there is a requirement to use her proper name. The situation then is that she properly uses 'Jean Stick t/a Sticky Jeans' Please understand however that a failure to do this is not a huge error - it has no significant legal consequences.

What the section is doing is saying that the various restrictions having been created, they do not always apply where a person trades under his own name. The section creates an exemption from some restrictions. It is permissive not restrictive.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11860
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby Denning » Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:48 pm

dls wrote:It is sensible for a parry to a contract to be sure that the identification is clear.

Jean Stick (a person) is entitled to trade under any name provided
1) no restricted word is improperly used, and
2) there is no passing off or trade mark infringement.

If Jean Stick trades as 'Sticky Jeans' then she just uses Sticky Jeans at all times save where there is a requirement to use her proper name. The situation then is that she properly uses 'Jean Stick t/a Sticky Jeans' Please understand however that a failure to do this is not a huge error - it has no significant legal consequences.

What the section is doing is saying that the various restrictions having been created, they do not always apply where a person trades under his own name. The section creates an exemption from some restrictions. It is permissive not restrictive.

A decision maker thinks otherwise and decided that the error is fatal. That only a person can be a party to any agreement that can be enforceable. A person can be a natural person or a legal person. That "Sarah Lewis Company" which is a party to the agreement is neither a natural person nor a legal person.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: S1192 of the Company Act 2006 - Permitted Additions

Postby atticus » Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:56 pm

If you are correctly reporting what that person has said, he is wrong. Why do you seek to prove him right?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18873
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Company Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest