Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd [1] John Hobhouse, Baron Hobhouse of Woodborough said, . As Lord Mustill points out, Lord Mansfield was at the time attempting to introduce into English commercial law a general principle of good faith, an attempt which was ultimately unsuccessful and only survived for limited classes of transactions, one of which was insurance.
Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005, unjust enrichment, or quasi-contract; Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins (1765) 3 Burr 1663, irrelevance of consideration; Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905, good faith principle in context of insurance; Alderson v Temple (1768) 96 ER 384, on fraudulent preferences in insolvency aimed at equality
The principles underlying this rule were stated by Lord Mansfield in the leading and often-quoted case of Carter v Boehm (1766) 97 ER 1162, 1164, Insurance is a contract of speculation...
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)
Over the late 17th and 18th centuries Sir John Holt, [19] and then Lord Mansfield actively incorporated the principles of international trade law and custom into English common law as they saw it: principles of commercial certainty, good faith, [20] fair dealing, and the enforceability of seriously intended promises. [21]
Legal formalism is both a descriptive and normative theory of how judges should decide cases. [1] In its descriptive sense, formalists maintain that judges reach their decisions by applying uncontroversial principles to the facts; formalists believe that there is an underlying logic to the many legal principles that may be applied in different cases.
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]
Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties' conduct and worthiness.