Gower, op. 5 H.L. 589. [1940]Google Scholar Ch. ; Russell Kinsela Pry Ltd (in liq.) Secondly, they must now be doubted because like the Multinational Gas case the ratification was prospective and that case is authority that there is no breach of duty and no misfeasance if the directors have acted with the assent of all the shareholders, albeit that they are the shareholders. t. King 61 (landlord's refusal); Fine Industrial Commodities Ltd.v. 2) [1896] 1 Ch. The role of a promoter does not end immediately after the company is incorporated. there must presumably be disclosure to the members as well. & G. 19. 488Google Scholar, 497. 85 Cook v. Deeks [1916] 1 A.C. 554Google Scholar. 6 See, e.g., the following textbooks, each of which incorporates one or more model deeds of settlement: C. F. F. Wordsworth, The Law Relating to Railway, Bank, Insurance, Mining and other Joint-Stock Companies, 2nd ed. 2 e.g., Keeton, The Director as Trustee (1952) 5 C.L.P. . At best, a trustee who relied on a fellow-trustee would be jointly liable, but entitled to an indemnity. 1064, 10661067per Jenkins, L.J.Google Scholar; Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd (No. 1, 1518; and Cornell v. Hay (1873) L.R. v. Sutton (1742) 2 Atk. The Committee of the House of Commons Are Anti Defection Provisions Constitutionally Justified. 2) [1896] 1 Ch. See above, pp. P. & O. . 795; Jacobus Marler Estates Ltd. v. Marler (1916) 85 L.J.P.C. 1, paras. Unless this can be implied from the context. The decision has been followed by the Privy Council in Burland v. Earle [1902] A.C. 83, 99Google Scholar and is implicit in the advice of the Board in North-West Transportation Co. Ltd v. Beatty (1887) 12 App. 96. 5 Ch.App. (2d) 505Google Scholar; Mills v. Mills, supra. 562. Peso Silver Mines Ltd. v. Cropper (1966Google Scholar) 56 D.L.R. 270Google Scholar; Wedderburn, , Minority Shareholders and Directors' Duties (1978) 41 M.L.R. Ltd. (1890) 59 LJ.Ch. cit. Gower, op. The vendor was one of theoriginal partners who sold the mines as trustee for all the sixpartners including the two directors. 1 See Zwicker v. Stanbury [1954] 1 D.L.R. 616; cf. 83 Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron (1880) 5 Ex.D. 681Google Scholar. These will be answered in turn. In confirmation of this principle of the common law, section 36C(1) of the CA 1985 states that: a contract which purports to be made by or on behalf of a company at a time when the company has not been formed has effect, subject to any agreement to the contrary, as one made with the person purporting to act for the company or as agent for it, and he or she is personally liable on the contract accordingly.. 56 Cf. Burland v. Earle [1902]Google Scholar A.C. 83, 93, per Lord Davey. 592; the Widows' Case, note 15, supra; Hichens v. Congreve (1828) 4 Russ. 319; Re North Australian Territory Co., Archer's Case [1892] 1 Ch. & C.C.C. & C.C.C. Cf. 407, 428, per Romer J. 257Google Scholar, where the director was found to have had a mandate, and accordingly debarred from enforcing the security at its face value. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. cit. Fiona must consider coming to some form of compromise with the company in regards to her liability under these contracts.. Graham is not a party to either of the two stated pre-incorporation contracts and thus has no liability under them. There is no information as to any disclosure to the company as to the existence or extent of Grahams profit, and this is of particular significance given the size of the profit and the fact that Graham has sold the chairs on to Tidy plc for four times the price he purchased them for. 36 The directors in the exercise of their powers still owe fiduciary duties to the members as a whole in any matter where the interest of the company as an economic entity is not affectede.g., in the making of calls, the declaration of a dividend, or the issue of further shares, they may not give some members an advantage at the expense of others: see p. 93, infra. 400. (note 2, supra), 2nd ed., p. 511. Keech v. Sandford (1726) Sel.Cas. "useRatesEcommerce": false 189Google Scholar, 213. 8183, where the proposal cited makes it plain that the directors and trustees were to be independent); Birmingham Mining & Copper Co. (1790), cited DuBois,op. 165. App. 378Google Scholar (but see note 85, infra). 132135. This principle was applied by the House of Lords in the Regal (Hastings) case [1967] 2 A.C. 134n, 137138, 144145, 155156, in relation to directors' unauthorised profits on contracts with third parties. Trustee savings banks, however, were exceptional, in that trustees did as a rule constitute the executive; and this was probably true also of one or two building and friendly societies. 17 Halsbury's Laws of England (Simonds ed. 368. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Overend Gurney & Co. v. Gurney (1869) L.R. Gower, op. 123Google Scholar, 127. Therefore, those independent professionals who assist only on legal or financial matters in connection with incorporation will not be considered as promoters but all other individuals involved in organising the incorporation of a company are likely to be. 489 (subsequently on appeal, (1857) 8 De G.M. (Cantab.) 498500; Meagher, , Gummow, and Lehane, , Equitable Doctrines and Remedies (2nd ed., 1984), pp. 59 Re Smith & Fawcett Ltd. [1942]Google Scholar Ch. D. 221 and (1885) 29 Ch. 472Google Scholar. 44 (where the directors were chosen); York and North-Midland Ry. 666, 674per Glass, J.A., 681Google Scholarper Samuels J. 435. 24 A trustee may, of course, consult experts and employ agents, but he does not thereby divest himself of the responsibility of making decisions personally. 399; Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co. v. Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch. It may be possible to adopt the contract or negotiate a replacement contract on the same terms but this will probably be a matter for mutual agreement (given that the facts are silent as to the exact terms of the original agreement) and not something on which Tidy plc could insist. 206; Re Denham & Co. (1883) 25 Ch.D. As a consequence, Graham is forbidden from making a profit out of his position unless he has fully and frankly disclosed his interest in a transaction from which any profit arose and the company consents to the retention of the profit by him. 66 e.g., Learoyd v. Whiteley (1887) 12 App.Cas. 64 Cf. 652, 658, 661 (per Lord Herschell), 671 (per Lord Macnaughten); cf. 53 Burland v Earle [1902] AC 83. 48 Land Credit Co. of Ireland v. Lord Fermoy (1870) L.R. In the case Phonogram Ltd v Lane (1982)[8] pre-incorporation financial transactions took place in connection with the formation of a pop group and a management company. 136147. Cape Breton County is one of eighteen counties in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia.It is located on Cape Breton Island.. From 1879 to 1995, the area of the county excluded from towns and cities was incorporated as the Municipality of the County of Cape Breton to provide local government services. In simple words a promoter is an individual who promotes a business project by means of setting up a company. 407. Cavendish Bentick v Fenn (1887) There is an obligation to give 1st offer to principal from the trust therefore there is a time limit (reasonable period) 167n. D. 795; Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878) 3 App. 589, 593594. If the plaintiff company had relied on Cook v. Deeks (supra), and alleged that the profits belonged in equity to it, it is submitted that the plea would have been unanswerable. 532Google Scholara rule apparently overlooked in Re Cleadon Trust Ltd. [1939]Google Scholar Ch. Zwicker v. Stanbury [1954] 1 D.L.R. It is restitutio in integrum that follows rescission, not an account of profits. Re German Mining Co., ex p. Chippendale (1853) 4 De G.M. & F. 232: 16 directors, 5 trustees; Imperial Bank of England (1837) in Wallworth v. Holt (1841) 4 My. cit. This information may affect the status of the transaction and the remedies available to Tidy plc. v. Sulton (1742) 2 Atk. p. 453). 549. 45. 158. 709Google Scholar. & G. 19, 34; Overend & Gurney Co. v. Gibb (1872) L.R. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court. With the ratification of directors' breaches of duty no question of the subsequent granting of authority arises. 701, 720, per Lord Hatherley, L.C. Capital has to be raised and once it has truly been raised it has to be maintained. 1064, 106667Google Scholar, where he twice refers to the alleged wrong as a transaction, and speaks of the possibility of the transaction being confirmed by the majority, but not of the release of the wrongdoers from personal liability. concurred; pp. (Ct.Sess.) 's analysis rested on affirmation is, it is submitted, accordingly not sustainable. 20 Eq. (1883) 23 Ch.D. 99,403 at pp. Cf. 326, 340, per Knight Bruce V.-C.; York and North-Midland Ry. D. 1; In re North Australian Territory Co. (Archer's Case) [1892] 1 Ch. 453 has already been referred to; the remainder all deal with the equitable right to elect between rescinding and affirming a voidable transaction, and not with the defendant's personal liability. 400 would have been the members, and not the corporation. v. Hudion (1853) 16 Beav. 10 Ch.App. 752; Grimwade v.Mutual Society (1884) 52 L.T. Is the law, in so far as it is based on trust principles, adequate to ensure the proper discharge by directors of their responsibilities? 99 There is no duty to the selling shareholder in the absence of agency: Percival v. Wright [1902] 2 Ch. 4 Ch.App. & C.C.C. 619: 8 directors, 2 trustees, 3 public officers (for the purposes of litigation). 616, 643645, per Scrutton L.J. Three questions are posed by the scenario under review. However, after the Multinational Gas case, and the rejection of the view that a solvent company owes duties to its creditors, there would seem to be nothing in principle to stop the unanimous vote of the shareholders from authorising conduct which would be a fraud on the minority if there were a minority, provided their actions were not ultra vires the company or otherwise illegal. 384. page 143 note 21 As an alternative, it would seem that the unanimous agreement of all the shareholders having the right to attend and vote at a general meeting given informally will suffice: see Re Duomatic Ltd [1969] 2 Ch. Re Exchange banking Co. Flit crofts case. v. Sutton (1742) 2 Atk. Unless given pursuant to a contract, the consent or waiver is revocable in its application to future conduct by the giving of reasonable notice to the party who benefits from it; save that, if the party cannot resume his position or if the termination would cause injustice to him, it may be binding: see Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed., Vol. This aspect of the judgment is discussed by Dawson, , Acting in the Best Interests of the CompanyFor whom are the Directors Trustees? (1984) 11 N.Z.U.L.R. 96. (London, 1954), p. 136Google Scholar (but cf. An example is art. and Woodhouse A.C. Israel Cocoa Ltd S.A. v. Nigerian Produce Marketing Co. Ltd [1972] A.C. 741. page 129 note 53 Brikom Investments Ltd v. Carr [1979] Q.B. Cf. 286. 490Google Scholar; Ngurli Ltd. v. McCann (1953) 90 C.L.R. p. 33, and 2nd ed., pp. ), p. 678 et seq. 515Google Scholar. Where the ratification relates to the voidable exercise of a corporate power, the analogy with ratification stricto sensu is closer, but the legal incidents are still distinct. D. 13, 25per Mellish, L.J. VII, pp. 409, 416, per Chitty J. 257Google Scholar, where directors who acquired a member's shares without cost, in the course of negotiations for a reorganisation, were required to surrender them to the company. View examples of our professional work here. 2 Overend Gurney & Co. v. Gurney (1869) L.R. 2) [1982] Ch. (London, 1837); J. Collyer, Practical Treatise on the Law of Partnership, 2nd ed. 68 In re Cape Breton Company (1885) 29 Ch. & P. Coats Ltd. v. Crossland (1904) 20 T.L.R. 23 In practice, a trustee who has acted reasonably may be relieved under statutory provisions, e.g., Trustee Act 1925, s. 61. 492 (benefit to directors and stranger): Re New Traveller' Chambers Ltd. (1896) 12 T.L.R. 94 94 [1902] A.C. 83. Given that Fiona entered into the contract for the computers she is subject to personal liability to pay the bill for them if Tidy plc fails to make payment on the contract itself. 148149. 407, where the language is objective. It is disappointing that Regal (Hastings) Ltd. v. Gulliver was argued only as a claim for profits owed to the company, based in quasi-contract. (note 2, supra), 2nd ed., p. 104. A) Is Tidy plc bound to pay for the computers? 450. cit., p. 244; the British Society (1779), DuBois, pp. This point is made clear by Cotton L.J. & C.C.C. there must presumable be disclosure to the members as well. 708. 4 He is acquitted of dishonesty in the usual sense of the word. cit. the Widows' Case, an unreported decision of Lord Thurlow in 1785, mentioned by Lord Eldon in Pearce v. Piper (1809) 17 Ves. Unless this can be implied from the context. 392, 437; Jacobus Marler Estates Ltd. v. Marler (1916) 85 L.J.P.C. Total loading time: 0 As to the efficacy of such articles both in relation to equitable and common law duties, see Imperial Mercantile Credit Association v. Coleman (1871) L.R. In the case of a service director, this includes inventions made in his company's time: Fine Industrial Commodities Ltd. v. Powling (1954) 71Google Scholar R.P.C. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. (1883) 23 Ch.D. 616, 626, per Kekewich J. 8 e.g., Companies Act 1948, Table A, Art. In re Cape Breton Co., (1884) 26 Ch. 301, 304305: but cf. Menu. ; Re Cape Breton Co. (1885) 29 Ch.D. Mayer, Colin 617, 625; Mills v. Mills (1938) 60 C.L.R. 69, 7981; [1963] C.L.J. Cavendish Bentick v Fenn (1887) 12 App Cas 652 (HL) Hostname: page-component-75b8448494-48m8m This is evidenced, not the least, by the variety of other names attributed to the process performed by the general meeting when it ratifies a breach of duty. 400 (where the solution adopted was t o make the passive directors liable in the second degree to those actively involved); Benson v. Heathorn (1842) 1 Y. } And see the cases cited at n.29 above dealing with the affirmation by a cestui que trust of voidable transactions entered into by a trustee. page 139 note 2 Ibid., at pp. The concept of the director as a trustee persists through the cases and the textbooks to this day, but its origin is ill-explained and its modern relevance imperfectly understood. 708Google Scholar. v. Kinsela (1984) 8 A.C.L.R. the view expressed by Baker, , Disclosure of Directors' Interests in Contracts [1975] J.B.L. Mayson, French and Ryan, Mayson, French and Ryan on Company Law, (2005) Oxford University Press, Keenan D., & Bisacre J., Smith & Keenans Company Law For Students, (2005) Longman, Dine J, Company Law, 5th ed, (2005) Palgrave Macmillan, French, Statutes on Company Law 2005-2006, (2005) Oxford University Press. 50 Grimwade v. Mutual Society (1884) 52 L.T. The company was formedand two of these same partners became directors. 475; Re Kingston Cotton Mill (No. Re Cape Breton Co If the company shows intention to affirm the contract, rescission will not be available Long v Lloyd Delay in decision to rescind may bar the company's right to remedy. Also Chitty, , The Law of Contracts (25th ed., 1983), Vol. Peso Silver Mines Ltd. v. Cropper (1966) 56 D.L.R. When ratification is raised as an issue in relation to directors' breaches of duty, the difficulty which is most commonly discussed is how to draw the line between ratifiable and non-ratifiable breaches. the company affirms the contract (Re Cape Breton Co (1885) 29 Ch D 795) the company delays in exercising its right to rescind the contract. Hutton v. West Cork Ry. Cf. It is submitted that this well known definition includes those who take the procedural steps necessary to form the company and those who establish the companys business which will typically involve the conclusion of pre-incorporation contracts. 32, 471). 6 Ch. 57 Wilson v. London Midland & Scottish Ry. 49 Re City Equitable Fire Insce. 60 Cf. Gluckstein v Barnes [1900] 158. London Trust Co. Ltd. v. Mackenzie (1893) 62 L.J.Ch. Fontana N.V. v. Mautner (1979) 254 E.G. cit., p. 233: committee of management 21, one or more trustees; Norwich Equitable Assurance Co. (1807), in Long v. Yonge (1830) 2 Sim. In contrast, the bona fides of majority shareholders may be inquired into even when they have an adverse interest: North-West Transportation Co. Ltd. v. Beatty (1887) 12 App.Cas. 226), so that there could be no breach of trust by the corporation in which the director could be involved; and, further, if this view were correct, the proper plaintiffs in Charitable Corpn. (1888) 40 Ch.D. The case of Gluckstein v Barnes [1900][12] offers further authority on the point that a promoter is not entitled to undisclosed profits in his dealings with or on behalf of the company he is promoting. 97 (1874) L.R. As Kelner v Baxter and Phonogram v Lane indicate, and as section 36C of the CA 1985 confirms, it is not possible Tidy plc is not a party to the contract for the vacuum cleaners and thus it has no right to insist on the delivery of the vacuum cleaners due to the simple principle of privity of contract.. See also Ashburner, Principles of Equity, pp. 795, 803-804, per Cotton L.J. 46 Re Lands Allotment Co. [1894] 1 Ch. 9 Shaw & Sons (Salford) Ltd. v. Shaw [1935] 2 K.B. Operations Management. Acting in the Best Interests of the CompanyFor whom are the Directors Trustees. 586, 593, per RomiUy M.R. v. Hudson, supra; Burt v. British Nation Life Assce. The latter for the reasons set out below, the former on the grounds that the breach of duty results in a voidable, not a void, transaction. Co. Ltd. [1925] Ch. Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Syndicate [1899] 2 Ch. 283Google Scholar, and Dugdale, and Yates, , Variation, Waiver and Estoppel: A Re-Appraisal (1976) 39 M.L.R. 795, 803804, per Cotton L.J. v. Hudson (not reported on this point, but referred to in Great Luxembourg Ry. It includes those steps necessary to see that it has share and loan capital and to obtain the property, business and other assets which the company is being created to control.. No definition of promoter is provided by the Companies Act 1985. 476, 511. 1323.Cf. page 135 note 76 Although in the following pages reference is made only to the company law cases, the analysis is equally applicable to the earlier trustee cases, if cestui que trust is substituted for company and trustee for director.. 407 (both dealing with an exemption from liability in negligence). 19 Re Kingston Cotton Mill (No. 99,42999,432Google Scholar. (1889) 68 LJ.Ch. 4 Ch.App. If the directors make an undisclosed profit by causing the company to contract with them, or exercise a power of allotment in breach of their fiduciary duties, the powers exercised are within their actual authority and will bind the company, unless the company is able to exercise its right to rescind. the view of Wright, J. in Re Lady Forrest (Murchison) Gold Mine Ltd [1901] 1 Ch. Re Cape Breton Co (1885) Six partners purchased coal mines for 5,500 and mined themduring the partnership. 40 Maitland, op. 56 Cf. D. 286, 314; Culling v. Duncan (1906) 8 N.Z.L.R. This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. This is sometimes referred to as novation[9] agreement. hasContentIssue false, Copyright Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1987. 91 Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Thompson, supra (information obtained at company's expense). 31Google Scholar, that there was no liability to account because there had been an affirmation of the transaction, cannot be sustained. A distinction must be made between an ultra vires misapplication of funds and a mere breach of duty. Generally, however, the Table A articles dealing with directors' duties require only disclosure to the board and not, additionally, the obtaining of the board's consent. 5 Ch.App. 85 Cook v. Deeks [1916] 1 A.C. 554Google Scholar. It was irrelevant that that company could not have afforded to take the shares itself through which the profits were made: a plaintiff can own in equity what it cannot own at law; and evidence of impossibility, like any other evidence tendered to show bona fides, is not admissible (see note 61, supra). (note 2, supra), 2nd ed., pp. 616, 618; Merchants' Fire Office Ltd. v. Armstrong (1901) 17 T.L.R. & G. 19. page 129 note 51 A director may, for example, have expended on a holiday moneys he had previously set aside to meet his potential liability to the company. 328. 407Google Scholar. This is also the position in Australia: Legione v. Hateley (1983) 57 A.L.J.R. Most obviously, where a promoter is selling property to a company, he must ensure that he discloses any profit that he is making on the deal. 64.25. 548Google Scholar, though the contrary argument is made by Gregory, , Section 205 of the Companies Act 1948A Reply (1983) 99 L.Q.R. 80. It would be difficult to base this remedy in contract against a director qua director: cf. v. Blaikie Bros. (1854) 1 Macq. 870. 37 Cf. Cf. page 147 note 39 See s.36, Companies Act 1985 as to the form of deed under seal. 14 See especially Benson v. Heathorn (1842) 1 Y. 412Google Scholar; Harris v. A. Harris Ltd., 1936Google Scholar S.C. 183; Baird v. J. Baird & Co. (Falkirk) Ltd., 1949Google Scholar S.L.T. Griffin S.., Company Law Fundamental Principles, (2005) Longman, Sealy L. S., Sealy: Cases and Materials in Company Law, 7th ed (2001) LexisNexis UK, Shepherd (ed. 86 Robinson v. Randfontein Estates Gold Mining Co. Ltd., 1921Google Scholar A.D. 168, 179, per Innes C.J. 425Google Scholar. 5 Ch.App. cit. How far has the law acknowledged these differences? 7 The precedent in Collyer (note 6, supra) constitutes four different sets of trustees for the company: (i) the vendor or trustee who had purchased property on its behalf before it was formed, (ii) three covenantees, to enforce the provisions of the deed against all the other subscribers, (iii) a fourth covenantee with whom these three covenanted to observe the deed, (iv) trustees in whom the property was to be vested. 167Google Scholar (where the possibility of a claim in negligence is referred to). First, their Lordships may have come to this conclusion only because the directors were in control. Cas. 93Google Scholar; Rider, , Amiable Lunatics and the Rule in Foss v. Harbottle [1978] C.L.J. v. Hudson (1853) 16 Beav. An example was the Re cape Breton Co (1885)case. . ; Re George Newman & Co. [1895] 1 Ch. 100; Re Forest of Dean Coal Mining Co. (1878) 10 Ch.D. 515. in Long v. Yonge (1830) 2 Sim. 6 Cf. 257Google Scholar (beyond company's means). & C.C.C. 569Google Scholar; Mason, , Ratification of the Directors' Acts: An Anglo-Australian Comparison [1978] 41 M.L.R. The purchase was thereafter approved by the board of directors of the new company, who had been appointed by Erlanger and were largely under his influence. 26, 34. The distinction is not always made clearly in the cases which follow; but it is the essential factor in determining whether the interested directors may use their votes as members in order to sanction the retention of a profit made by them. 1218. page 137 note 90 See Hogg v. Cramphorn Ltd [1967] Ch. 654. 3 The leading modern case is Re City Equitable Fire Insce. 393; cf. 79 Re Thomson [1930] 1 Ch. 19 Re Kingston Cotton Mill (No. 573. page 143 note 20 This includes disclosing the otherwise impermissible nature of the action for which the approval is sought: Winthrop Investments Ltd v. Winns Ltd [1975] 2 N.S.W.L.R. & C.C.C. 25 Cf. (1858) 25 Beav. The promoter who had acted on behalf of the company was deemed personally liable to pay the bill. 326; York and North-Midland Ry. Tidy plc does not owe any legal liability to do so. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. In terms of the law of equity a promoter owes a fiduciary duty to the company he or she is promoting. The cases cited, however, do not support this principle: Stackhouse v. Barnston (1805) 10 Ves. (at p. 457) had previously expressed doubts about the ability of the general meeting to excuse themselves from their misfeasance (but cf. 161Google Scholar; Prentice, , Self-Serving Negligence and the Rule in Foss v. Harbottle (1979) 43Conveyancer 47Google Scholar; Boyle, , Minority Shareholders' Suits for Breach of Directors' Duties (1980) 1Company Lawyer 3Google Scholar; Sealy, , A Setback for the Minority Shareholder [1982] C.L.J. 634; Pavlides v. Jensen [1956]Google Scholar Ch. Chesterfield & Boythorpe Colliery Co. v. Black (1877) 37 L.T. 67 Overend & Gurney Co. v. Gibb (1872) L.R. (note 2, supra), pp. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! In the case of Kelner v Baxter (1866)[5] a contract for the delivery of goods (bottles of wine) was entered into by a promoter on behalf of a company that had yet to be formed, with the intention that the company would sell the goods after its incorporation. We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Thecompany purchased the mines for 42,000. 96.Cf.

Kfan Personalities Salaries, Qubo Shows 2008, Small Warehouse Space For Rent Houston, What Is The Best Definition Of Realpolitik, Why Was Adrian Gish Stalking Shay, Articles R