▁act ▁which ▁is ▁entered ▁into ▁for ▁an ▁impro per ▁purpose ▁( which ▁is ▁not ▁beyond ▁the ▁capacity ▁of ▁a ▁company , ▁or ▁void ) ▁and ▁an ▁act ▁which ▁is ▁wh olly ▁outside ▁a ▁company ' s ▁objects ▁( and ▁hence ▁ult ra ▁v ires ▁and ▁void ). ▁However , ▁it ▁was ▁un en force able ▁because ▁British ▁Ste el , ▁with ▁knowledge ▁of ▁the ▁irregular ity , ▁could ▁not ▁rely ▁on ▁a ▁pres umption ▁of ▁regular ity ▁in ▁the ▁company ’ s ▁internal ▁management . ▁Since ▁British ▁Ste el ▁‘ construct ively ▁knew ’ ▁about ▁the ▁lack ▁of ▁authority , ▁they ▁could ▁ac quire ▁no ▁rights ▁under ▁the ▁guarantee . ▁On ▁ult ra ▁v ires ▁Brow ne - Wil kin son ▁L J ▁said ▁the ▁following . ▁ ▁On ▁the ▁question ▁of ▁authority ▁S lade ▁L J ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁Rule ▁in ▁Tur qu and ' s ▁case , ▁which ▁would ▁ordin arily ▁ent itle ▁a ▁person ▁dealing ▁with ▁a ▁company ▁who ▁to ▁assume ▁the ▁company ' s ▁own ▁internal ▁rules ▁were ▁comp lied ▁with , ▁did ▁not ▁apply ▁when ▁it ▁came ▁to ▁someone ▁bre aching ▁a ▁rule ▁to ▁further ▁their ▁own ▁personal ▁interests . ▁ ▁See ▁also ▁▁ ▁UK ▁company ▁law ▁ ▁Cap acity ▁in ▁English ▁law ▁ ▁Agency ▁in ▁English ▁law ▁ ▁First ▁EU ▁Company ▁Law ▁Direct ive ▁ 6 8 / 1 5 1 / E EC ▁ ▁Hart og ▁v ▁Col in ▁& ▁Sh ield s ▁[ 1 9 3 9 ] ▁ 3 ▁All ▁ER ▁ 5 6