Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Freedom of contract is the principle according to which individuals and groups may form contracts without government restrictions. This is opposed to government regulations such as minimum-wage laws , competition laws , economic sanctions , restrictions on price fixing , or restrictions on contracting with undocumented workers .
United States (312 F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 444) is a 1963 United States Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) court case which has become known as the Christian Doctrine. The case held that standard clauses established by regulations may be considered as being in every Federal contract.
It is most notable for strong advocacy of the principle of freedom of contract put forward by Sir George Jessel MR. The strict principles expressed were mostly abandoned over the 20th century, as summarised by Lord Denning MR in George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd. [1]
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the Contract Clause, imposes certain prohibitions on the states. These prohibitions are meant to protect individuals from intrusion by state governments and to keep the states from intruding on the enumerated powers of the U.S. federal government .
The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (1979) is a legal-historical text on the changes in the concept of freedom of contract by English Professor Patrick Atiyah. It was published by the Oxford University Press, and a paperback edition was released in 1985.
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a New York State statute that prescribed maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The decision has since been effectively overturned. [2 ...
Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"), [1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.
PS Atiyah, The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford 1979) AWB Simpson, A History of the Common Law of Contract: the Rise of the Action of Assumpsit (1987) OW Holmes, The Common Law especially lecture 7; Decock, Wim (2013). Theologians and Contract Law : The Moral Transformation of the Ius commune (ca. 1500-1650). Leiden/Boston: Martinus ...