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 ...
Mansfield spent much time bringing the law of England on par with that of other countries, particularly in cases such as Pillans & Rose v Van Mierop & Hopkins [1765] 3 Burr 1663, and Carter v Boehm [1766] 3 Burr 1905. [98] As a result of his work, he was described by a later judge as "the founder of the commercial law of this country". [56] [66]
The Bank guarantee case or Bürge (19 October 1993) BVerfGE 89, 214 is a German contract law case, concerning the interpretation of private law, and particularly the law of contract, in a way that is compatible with basic human rights principles.
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.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
(2) The settlement is expected to include other active cases such as the Hubbard and Carter lawsuits, both brought against the NCAA and power leagues by the same attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, who is ...
Nortz v. United States 294 U.S. 317 (1935): The owner of $106,300 in federal gold certificates surrendered them as required by Executive Order 6102, receiving only their face value in currency. He sued in the United States Court of Claims for an additional $64,000 representing the loss of the dollar against gold.