Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Da Costa v Jones (1778) 2 Cowp 729; HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank Rix LJ stated, "I am conscious that in Carter v. Boehm itself Lord Mansfield does seem to have considered that there was a difference between the concealment which the duty of good faith prohibited and mere silence (‘Aliud est celare; aliud ...
Carter v Boehm (1766) on good faith; Da Costa v Jones (1778) Hochster v De La Tour (1853) on anticipatory breach; Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts; Foakes v Beer [1] (1884) on part payments of debt (with a notable dissenting opinion by Lord Blackburn)
Uberrima fides (sometimes seen in its genitive form uberrimae fidei) is a Latin phrase meaning "utmost good faith" (literally, "most abundant faith").It is the name of a legal doctrine which governs insurance contracts.
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". [1]
v. ) tommy p. beaudreau, et al., ) defendants, and ) cape wind associates, llc, ) intervenor. ) _____) memorandum of the conservation law foundation, the natural resources defense council, and mass audubon in support of defendants’ motions for summary judgment and in opposition to peer et al. plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their
The NCAA and power conferences cast votes this week in support of settling three antitrust cases (House, Hubbard and Carter), approving terms that feature nearly $2.8 billion in back damages; a ...
James W. Carter was a bitter foe of the United Mine Workers; he was a shareholder of the Carter Coal Company of McDowell County, West Virginia and did not feel that the company should join the government program. The board of directors for the company thought that the company could not afford to pay the tax if it did not receive anything back.
General Motors was ordered by a federal appeals court to face a class action claiming it violated laws of 26 U.S. states by knowingly selling several hundred thousand cars, trucks and SUVs with ...