Talk:Hunter v Moss

Hunter v Moss has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 23, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 9, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in Hunter v Moss has been called either "sensible" and "fair", or something that could become "stigmatised", "spurious" and doctrinally wrong?

A thing I was rather surprised not to read in this article is a compare-and-contrast with the decision in Re Goldcorp Exchange Limited (in Receivership), [1995] 1 AC 74.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Wine is the more common case. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what happens, and why the coat of arms disappears with my changes - please change it. Otherwise, I made some useful changes which it would be good to see back there. Wik idea 08:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the change to the court name; the addition of |Court of Appeal (silly template, I know). Everything else seems to be fine, although the external linking of the bailii judgment in the lead seems unnecessary, since it's going to be linked twice elsewhere on the page. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, you know I think it's useless to link to the case citation page and it's more convenient for more people to the have bailii link instead, but you wrote it first, so fine. Wik idea 13:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional text[edit]

Thanks for the additional text, but citation styles have to remain consistent - if you want to add more, add it in the form currently used. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]