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.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Merge. The case clearly has no significance outside the rule and vice versa. Suggest taking any additional material from "Turquand Rule" and posting it as a sub-para under "Royal British Bank v Turquand". Unless anyone lodges any objections, I'm happy to do it. Legis 07:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agreed. Makes sense to me... PurityControl 06:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
