{"title":"室内管理规则没有魔力","authors":"Hans Tjio, D. Ang","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3743849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In East Asia Company Ltd v PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified the relationship between ostensible authority and the indoor management rule. It also confirmed that third parties seeking to rely on the appearance of authority must have acted reasonably, and not just rationally or honestly.","PeriodicalId":266956,"journal":{"name":"Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Magic to the Indoor Management Rule\",\"authors\":\"Hans Tjio, D. Ang\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3743849\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In East Asia Company Ltd v PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified the relationship between ostensible authority and the indoor management rule. It also confirmed that third parties seeking to rely on the appearance of authority must have acted reasonably, and not just rationally or honestly.\",\"PeriodicalId\":266956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3743849\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3743849","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在East Asia Company Ltd诉PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo案中，枢密院司法委员会澄清了表面权威与室内管理规则之间的关系。它还证实，寻求依靠权威表象的第三方必须采取合理的行动，而不仅仅是理性或诚实。
In East Asia Company Ltd v PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified the relationship between ostensible authority and the indoor management rule. It also confirmed that third parties seeking to rely on the appearance of authority must have acted reasonably, and not just rationally or honestly.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
