Talk:Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Merge[edit]

I did not put up the merge tag but I agree with merging strongly.

I would suggest that this article (i.e. the "Salomon & Co.") article is superior layout and content and it may be easier simply to delete the other article, because I cannot see what information it contains that is not in this article. --Lucifer(sc) 16:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is the superior article, but I think the excerpts from the judgment which are in the other article should get copied across, possibly under a new title line of Ratio decidendi. They are widely cited, and very useful additions. Legis 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, on further consideration I agree with Legis.--Lucifer(sc) 18:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged the articles copying over the excerpts as suggested though it would be helpful if someone could find out which judge said what.--Lucifer 13:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]