Ad
related to: business efficacy test lawstudy.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64 is a leading English contract law case which created an important test for identifying the main terms that the law will imply in commercial, or non-consumer, agreements, especially terms that are "necessary and obvious...to give business efficacy". Terms shall not be implied merely because they appear "desirable and ...
And in Foo Jong Peng v Phua Kiah Mai [2012] 4 SLR 1267, paras 34-36, the Singapore Court of Appeal refused to follow the reasoning in Belize at least in so far as "it suggest[ed] that the traditional 'business efficacy' and 'officious bystander' tests are not central to the implication of terms" (reasoning which was followed in Sembcorp Marine ...
An appeal against the assessment by BP to the County Court was dismissed, as was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria.The Supreme Court held that under the Local Government Act the Shire of Hastings could only validly make an agreement with a particular ratepayer for specified land, and not any person who might subsequently become the ratepayer.
The test of whether one has acted in good faith is a subjective one; the cases suggest honesty, and possibly also reasonableness. There is no such implied term under UK common law: an attempt was made by Lord Denning in a series of case during the 1970s and 1980s but they are no longer considered 'good law'.
The officious bystander is a metaphorical figure of English law and legal fiction, developed by MacKinnon LJ in Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1] to assist in determining when a term should be implied into an agreement. While the officious bystander test is not the overriding formulation in English law today, it provides a useful guide.
The majority acknowledged the importance of forum selection clause for business efficacy. Where there is no legislation to the contrary, the common law test for forum selection clauses in Z.I. Pompey Industrie v.
4.3.2 Korean Contract Law ... The test of whether a clause is severable is an objective ... The Moorcock, [93] which introduced the "business efficacy" test ...
The plaintiffs argued that there was an implied contract because it was necessary to give business efficacy to the transaction and to reflect the reasonable expectations of the parties. The implication of a contract between a transferee of a bill of lading and a carrier was based on a doctrine known as Brandt v Liverpool, after a case decided ...