Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Rescission at common law (as distinct from rescission in equity) is a self-help remedy: historically, the common law courts simply gave effect to the rescinding party's unequivocal election to rescind the contract. Rescission at common law is only available for fraudulent misrepresentations and duress.
There are ways around the legal duty rule, such as mutual rescission of the existing contract with a clear indication of such rescission (literally tearing up the old contract). Also, in some states, parties may renegotiate contracts to include additional benefits if, for example, the party performs unexpected or additional duties, the parties ...
The right of rescission is a legal protection under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) that allows you to cancel certain home financing agreements without any financial penalties.
The elasticity of demand follows the law of demand and its definition. However, there are goods and specific situations that defy the law of demand. Generally, the amount demanded of a good increases with a decrease in price of the good and vice versa. In some cases this may not be true. There are certain goods which do not follow the law of ...
Equitable remedies are distinguished from "legal" remedies (which are available to a successful claimant as of right) by the discretion of the court to grant them. In common law jurisdictions, there are a variety of equitable remedies, but the principal remedies are: injunction [5] [6] specific performance; account of profits; rescission ...
It had, for example, a strong influence on the reflexions regarding contracts of prostitution. [10] The interpretations of Roman law principles on unjustified enrichment, by the French jurist Jean Domat and the German jurist Friedrich Carl von Savigny, formed the respective origins of the modern French and German law on unjustified enrichment. [11]
Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525 is an English contract law case concerning misrepresentation. It holds that an unequivocal act communicating the wish to rescind a contract can override third party rights. The communication does not need to go to the misrepresentor.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. In effect, the requirement removed the impoundment power, since Congress is not required to vote on the rescission and, in fact, has ...