Reluctant Bedfellows

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

Business · Computer security · Context (archaeology) · Irrationality · Law and economics · Political science · Principal (computer security) · Receipt · Sociology · Test (biology) · Accounting · Computer Science · History · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal principles and applications · Psychology · Social Psychology