Ad
related to: reasonableness test contract law
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Howard Marine and Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd [1978] QB 574 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation.It explains the test of "reasonable grounds for belief" under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s 2(1), and raises the issue of the reasonableness test under s 3.
However, when a non-consumer contract simply described a party's primary obligation, this was a ‘basis clause’ and there was no question of applying the reasonableness test. Clause 5.8 was not reasonable. The judge rightly stressed that pre-contract inquiries were important in conveyancing. There could be an exceptional case where a clause ...
In law, subjective standard and objective standards are legal standards for knowledge or beliefs of a plaintiff or defendant. [1] [2]: 554–559 [3]An objective standard of reasonableness ascertains the knowledge of a person by viewing a situation from the standpoint of a hypothetical reasonable person, without considering the particular physical and psychological characteristics of the defendant.
The expression has also been incorporated in Canadian patent jurisprudence, notably Beloit v.Valmet Oy [9] in its discussion of the test for obviousness. [10]In Australia, the "Clapham omnibus" expression has inspired the New South Wales and Victorian equivalents, "the man on the Bondi tram" (a now disused tram route in Sydney), [11] "the man on the Bourke Street tram" (), [12] and "the ...
Case law. Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd. [5] provides that reasonableness is assessed at the time of contract; and that the burden of proof is upon the party purporting to have excluded liability. Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co Ltd. [6] provides that clarity and preciseness will raise the reasonableness of a term; and vice ...
The test of whether a document fits within the description of a ticket is an objective test, that is, whether a reasonable person in the position of the ticket-holder would perceive it to be contractual in nature. For instance, if exclusion clauses accompany a docket, it may be held that it is not contractual in nature since it is just a receipt.
The reasonable man would deem that the promise of a reward was intended to be binding. Counterintuitively, the best way of discovering whether the parties intended to contract is not to ask them, as this "subjective test" would give the rogue an easy loophole to escape liability.
Unfair terms in English contract law are regulated under three major pieces of legislation, compliance with which is enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is the first main Act, which covers some contracts that have exclusion and limitation clauses.