A series of recent cases have extended the liability of employers for intentional wrongdoing by their employees. The article explores the implications of these decisions, arguing that they evidence the revival of the “master’s tort” theory of vicarious liability, and have the potential for a further, undesirable, widening of liability rules.

An act done by or on behalf of a company may be defective for a variety of reasons. It may be ultra vires the company itself: in which case it will be void. It may be within the powers of the company but outside the authority or powers of the agent (usually the directors) doing the act: in which case it will also be void, but may nevertheless in varying circumstances be ratified by the company. It may be within the powers both of the company and of the agent but be done for an improper purpose: in which case it may in some circumstances be set aside or afford some other remedy.

This article considers how problems in legal historiography can lead to real legal problems, through a case-study of two recent judgments which appear to revolutionise the law on overreaching under section 2(1)(ii) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Their reasoning ignored plain wording in the Act, in a way foreshadowed by problems in the historiography of the 1925 property legislation; and the legislative history shows that the version of overreaching they promote, one with a clear political meaning, was rejected by Parliament. One of these decisions has now been reversed on appeal, but on reasoning so untenable as to invite further challenge; and now two Court of Appeal judgments on overreaching contradict, without even mentioning, two prior Court of Appeal decisions and a decision of the House of Lords. The court should reaffirm the law on overreaching, and academics should develop a new historiography.

THE comparatively recent case of Collins v. Associated Greyhound Racecourses, Ltd. has raised in a forcible manner two old difficulties—namely, the legal position of undis–closed principals, and, as a corollary, the meaning of ‘person–ality,’especially in contracts involving undisclosed principals.

We are here concerned with a situation in which A, an undisclosed principal, employs B, an agent, to contract with C, a third party, in B's own name. By ‘undisclosed principals’ here are meant principals whose existence is not known to the third party and not principals who, known to be existent by the third party, are nevertheless not identified by name. By ‘agent’ is meant a person who in his own name contracts ostensibly for his own account, but behind whom there stands an undisclosed principal.

Before discussing Collins' Case we propose first to examine the general position of undisclosed principals.

The theory that the common law is one and indivisible does not now, one would have hoped, attract a great deal of support. But the practice of the English Bar and the decisions of the English Bench continue to raise suspicions that the theory is not entirely outdated. There seems still a tendency to equate common law with English law.

I want first to explore what is happening to crime in an international context. If we look only at our own country the perspective is too narrow, the explanations and remedies too parochial. We cannot hope to comprehend ourselves without taking account of others.

This article examines how courts determine whether proximity exists as between parties to a dispute in the “borderland” between two categories of negligence, viz. that concerning acts which cause physical harm and that concerning misstatements which cause pure economic losses. It is argued that these case categories cannot be delineated as neatly as the courts have assumed and that the kind of proximity typical of each is likely to be founded upon, at minimum, the presence of a close causal connection between ‘action’ and damage. In light of these findings, the article also considers the place of the notion of ‘directness’ in the tort of negligence.