Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy is a decision of the English Court of Appeal in English contract law, dealing with undue influence.One of the three judges hearing the case, Lord Denning MR, advanced the argument that under English law, all impairments of autonomy could be collected under a single principle of "inequality of bargaining power", but the other two judges were not drawn into commenting on ...
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, a case about the incorporation of terms by notice, famous for the opening line of Lord Denning MR's judgment: "Mr Thornton was a freelance trumpeter of the highest quality" Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd [1971] 2 QB 354, compensatory damages. Led to strong rebuke by Lord Hailsham in the House of Lords.
One of the most prominent cases in this area is Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy, [2] where Lord Denning MR advocated that there be a general principle to govern this entire area. He called the concept "inequality of bargaining power", while the American case espousing an equivalent doctrine, Williams v.
Slade LJ held that because of National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] UKHL 2 "manifest disadvantage" had to be shown even in cases of actual undue influence. The transaction was not manifestly disadvantageous. This requirement was subsequently overruled by the House of Lords in CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt [1993] UKHL 7 (21 October 1993).
Case Name Citation Court 1929: Lloyds Bank, Limited v The Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China [1929] 1 KB 40: Court of Appeal 1928: Edward Curran and Company, Limited v Kays [1928] 2 KB 469: Court of Appeal 1929: William Bean and Sons v Flaxton Rural District Council [1929] 1 KB 450: King's Bench Division and Court of Appeal 1929
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The health system is asking for $7.5 million in damages, but the final amount will be left up to 12 jurors.
In India, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India. High courts of India may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court.