Ad
related to: recent contract law cases
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
(3) Summarising the cases where the court has found lawful act duress. 17. The three earlier cases, Williams v Bayley, Kaufman v Gerson and Mutual Finance Ltd, were all cases in which the court treated the attempt by the party to uphold or enforce the contract as being unconscionable because of that party’s behaviour.
This page was last edited on 23 November 2009, at 17:41 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 [1] is a leading English contract law case. It concerns the problem found among some large businesses, with each side attempting to get their preferred standard form agreements to be the basis for a contract.
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) A state legislature can repeal a corruptly made law, but the Contract Clause of the Constitution prohibits the voiding of valid contracts made under such a law. This was the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. Martin v.
Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (Mich. 1887), [1] was a case that has played an important role in the evolution of American contract law involving the doctrine of mutual mistake. One of the main issues in the case was whether the remedy of rescission is available if both parties to a contract share a misunderstanding about an essential fact. [2]
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 is a leading English contract law case. It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the 'promiseor'.
Argentina's 2020 rent control law, repealed by President Javier Milei in December 2023, had loaded aboveground landlords with unbearable risks. Many like Martín fled the formal rental market into ...
Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) is an American contract law case of the New York Court of Appeals with a majority opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo.The case addresses several contract principles including applying the doctrine of substantial performance in preventing forfeiture and determining the appropriate remedy following a partial or defective performance.