Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
However, when a non-consumer contract simply described a party's primary obligation, this was a ‘basis clause’ and there was no question of applying the reasonableness test. Clause 5.8 was not reasonable. The judge rightly stressed that pre-contract inquiries were important in conveyancing. There could be an exceptional case where a clause ...
In constitutional and administrative law, reasonableness is a lens through which courts examine the constitutionality or lawfulness of legislation and regulation. [12] [13] [14] According to Paul Craig, it is "concerned with review of the weight and balance accorded by the primary decision-maker to factors that have been or can be deemed relevant in pursuit of a prima facie allowable purpose".
The second issue was that clause 23 excluded liability for misrepresentation under s 2(1). This depended on whether the clause passed the reasonableness test under s 3, in conjunction with the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s 11 and Sch 2. Judge Raymond Jack QC held that there was insufficient evidence to show whether it passed or failed the ...
The reasonableness test requires the court to assess the behaviour of the parties in the events which occurred prior to the making of the alleged representation, according to the following criteria: The representation may arise from either the words used or the behaviour of the parties.
Since 1946, the laws passed by the Congress, including legal codes, have been titled Republic Acts. [b] While Philippine legal codes are, strictly speaking, also Republic Acts, they may be differentiated in that the former represents a more comprehensive effort in embodying all aspects of a general area of law into just one legislative act.
In the law, the totality of the circumstances test refers to a method of analysis where decisions are based on all available information rather than bright-line rules. [1] Under the totality of the circumstances test, courts focus "on all the circumstances of a particular case, rather than any one factor". [ 2 ]
In most jurisdictions, courts routinely "blue pencil" or reform covenants that are deemed not reasonable. The blue pencil doctrine gives courts the authority to strike unreasonable clauses from a non-compete agreement, leaving the rest to be enforced, or actually to modify the agreement to reflect the terms that the parties originally could have and probably should have agreed to. [3]
Contracts are often signed and executed within the boundaries of the reasonability rule (are the terms reasonable to both parties, for example). One can even argue that the " meeting of the minds " requirement under contract law is in fact a codification of the reasonability rule.