#someone: menela- | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

menelaiad · 1 year

Note

hi! what are some of your fav menelaus headcanons??

oh anon you've done it now

tall. like. 6ft tall.

not broad. muscley and clearly strong. but leaner. aga and ajax and the like are certainly wider than him.

has been tall a long time. grew very fast. pissed of aga in the process. has a habit of curving his shoulders because of this. trying to appear shorter than he is.

a follower. hence the shoulder thing. he spent a lot of his formative years just. following aga. listening to aga. he was the second son. he wasnt set up for kingship or anything so he was kinda just left.

protected a lot by aga. i feel like menelaus' kinder nature was allowed to grow and flourish and wasnt CRUSHED by atreus because aga ... protected him. menelaus could be himself around aga.

ginger.

grew his hair fucking super long in sparta like the spartan men. even before the marriage to helen. because of the exile and tyndareus' kindness he just felt like sparta was home. so he kinda ... assimilated himself as soon as he could.

goes freckley in the sun.

he always makes a habit to use helen's name. not an epithet. or a title. her name is Helen.

due to not being prepped for kingship. menelaus can not read or write very well. if at all. he's even dictated to or gets people to write for him. after he became king he probably learnt the basics? but i feel all of atreus' energy went to aga (who also cant fucking read tbh)

i personally think menelaus was kinda ugly. or not like. conventionally handsome. but he's just such a nice freakin dude that people can't help but like him.

menelaus likes birds.

despite his. usually dormant nature. menelaus inherits atreus' anger. and it comes out in bursts. like strong. violent outbursts. like you see in book 3 with paris. when menelaus just drags him around and beats him. it's explosive and heated. it burns hot and dies just as quickly. but that is very atreus of him.

menelaus suffers from aches in his wrist after the paris fight and also he develops a limp from the wound in his thigh where he was shot with an arrow.

emotional. very emotional. with both the good and the bad. feels every emotion very strongly. feels others emotions (agaMEMNON in IOA) very strongly.

sharp features. sharp jaw. sharp nose. high cheekbones.

expressive as all hell. raises his eyebrows. makes faces. he is feeling things and his face will tell you what.

laughs a lot. not afraid to laugh and smile. smiles with his teeth a lot.

his smiles never quite reach his eyes but we'll move on from that.

develops a really close friendship with pat over the course of the war. that stems from them meeting at the suitor thing and they had lil chats then. often laments to him about how different things would be if helen had chose pat instead.

loses his fucking MARBLES when antilochus dies. i feel like the atreus anger would have come out again here.

after pat's death and him returning the body, achilles beats him to shit and menelaus doesn't fight back. he takes the blame ...... and the beating.

unintentionally always one of the funniest people in a room. is funny without even realising he's being funny. makes helen cry laughing several times.

i believe he was meant to marry clytemnestra. or at least that was the OG plan. they have a lot of fond yet awkward memories of each other.

blames himself for aga's death. and by extension - cly's.

iphigenia inherited the HOA red hair. watching her get sacrificed fucked him up tbh.

hermione is so SO SO important to him. especially as she was conceived around the whole 'sterile curse' thing in sparta. she is like a lil miracle to him.

honestly? can sometimes be a bit of a bitch.

gonna stop here cause that got REALLY long. but there's a handful of random ones that i wrote as they came into my head SDFGHJKL

#long post for ts ///#i have a lot of menelaus headcanons #like for his whole life #but here's a Taster #u know i love this man #someone: menela-#me: chats PURE WHAM for 147 hours #i also project onto menelaus and believe he has seizures #but that literally stems from 13 year old me projecting when i suffered my first seizre

66 notes · View notes

shortrichardsonforth · 7 years

Text

Supreme Court inspects winemaker’s claim against insolvent distributor – finds it to be corked

Introduction

In Re D&D Wine International, D&D contracted to act as agent and distributor for Angove’s Pty Limited. The dispute in the Court of Appeal only concerned D&D's role as agent. It was agreed that D&D (as agent) sold wine to customers on Angove's behalf (as principal), with contracts of sale being between Angove's and the customers.

A payment mechanism was agreed between the parties, by which D&D would charge customers the full price of the wine. Angove’s would charge D&D that same full price, but with D&D’s commission deducted.

The judge at the county court later identified the relationship between the parties as being a ‘del credere’ agency, in which D&D is required by Angrove’s to guarantee the debts of customers to whom wine is sold.

In April 2012, D&D went into administration, and two days later Angove's served written notice on D&D to end the agency contract with immediate effect and to remove D&D’s authority to collect any more payments from two specifically-named customers.

Following receipt of this notice, D&D received more than AU$800,000 from those two customers in payment for which had been delivered before the agency agreement had been terminated. D&D held these payments in escrow until the outcome of the litigation, and D&D later went into insolvent liquidation.

Dispute

The Court of Appeal was required to decide whether D&D still had Angrove’s authority to receive payments (after termination of the agency) if they related to deliveries made before termination. If so, that money would form part of D&D’s insolvency estate (to be distributed among its creditors) unless it was subject to a constructive trust.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that the termination provisions in the agency agreement preserved D&D's right after termination to receive payments already due in relation to goods already supplied. Further, Angrove’s notice ending D&D's authority to receive payment was ineffective to end D&D's authority, so D&D had the right to receive those payments and these fell to be distributed to its creditors, rather than returned to the customers or paid to Angrove’s.

The court briefly considered whether a constructive trust should be created in respect of the money in favour of Angove's, but found D&D's retaining the money was the natural but unfortunate result of D&D’s insolvency.

Supreme Court

On Angrove’s further appeal, the Supreme Court considered two questions:

1. Whether, once the agency had been terminated, D&D retained its authority to collect payment from third party buyers of Angrove’s goods.

2. Whether it would be unconscionable for D&D to retain payments and then allow them to fall into the insolvent estate when it knew (on receiving those payments) that its insolvency was imminent.

Lord Sumption gave the Supreme Court’s judgment, accepting that if someone receiving money is unable in good conscience to assert his own interest over another person with rights of which they are aware, then they may be liable to account for the money as a constructive trustee.

However, the court clarified that ‘good conscience’ “involves more than a judgment of the relative moral merits of the parties”. Lord Sumption stated that:

“…where money is paid with the intention of transferring the entire beneficial interest to the payee, the least that must be shown in order to establish a constructive trust is (i) that the intention was vitiated, for example because the money was paid as a result of a fundamental mistake or pursuant to a contract which has been rescinded, or (ii) that irrespective of the intentions of the payer, in the eyes of equity the money has come into the wrong hands, as where it represents the fruits of a fraud, theft or breach of trust or fiduciary duty against a third party. One or other of these is a necessary condition, although it may not be a sufficient one.”

In this case, the Supreme Court was clear that none of the elements set out by Lord Sumption were present: As D&D had the right to collect the proceeds of sale on behalf of Angrove’s, payments made by buyers to D&D were not mistaken, but were made in the correct belief that D&D was authorised to receive the money, or at if they paid D&D this would discharge their duty to pay Angrove’s for the goods.

Comment

This case shows that constructive trusts have not been given any “clear and all-embracing definition” in English law. The approach taken by the courts depends entirely on the various circumstances in which constructive trusts have been imposed in the past.

The Supreme Court has recently considered the granting of proprietary restitutionary remedies, namely to vindicate pre-existing property rights via tracing, particularly in the case of Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus. This contrasts with cases like D&D Wines, where Angove’s as claimants are not the original owners of the property and therefore have no pre-existing property right. Their claim is essentially that the property should have been transferred to them but for unjust circumstances, which prevent it. D&D Wines establishes that a defendant’s mere knowledge of their impending insolvency is not sufficient to give rise to a proprietary remedy as their ‘conscience’ is undisturbed.

For more information please contact Tim Berg.

#insolvency #Timberg

0 notes