Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co Ltd vs Riche Essay

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co Ltd vs Riche - Essay Example The decision in Ashbury confirmed that a company cannot carry on any business not specified in its objects clause. Third parties were often unable to sue companies in contract because of the ultra vires rule pertaining to the objects clause – which specifies the business the company can carry on and the legal powers of the company - in the Memorandum of Association. When the rule applied it made any contract which was caught by the rule void and the creditor could receive no restitution. This was justified by the rule of constructive notice. This holds that since the Memorandum is a public document all parties are deemed to have had the opportunity to read it prior to committing to a transaction. Moreover the rule protected the shareholders’ capital from acts undertaken by Directors purportedly on the company’s behalf. The immediate result was increasingly long objects clauses as companies strove to include any business they might wish to carry on, or power they might wish to exercise, together with catch-all clause permitting the company to carry on any business which the Directors thought fit: Bell Houses Ltd v City Wall Properties Ltd