Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The officious bystander is a metaphorical figure of English law and legal fiction, developed by MacKinnon LJ in Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1] to assist in determining when a term should be implied into an agreement. While the officious bystander test is not the overriding formulation in English law today, it provides a useful guide.
For common law contracts, disputes over contract formation are subjected to what is known as the objective test of assent in order to determine whether a contract exists. This standard is also known as the officious bystander, reasonable bystander, reasonable third party, or reasonable person in the position of the party. [51]
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries Ltd [1939] 2 KB 206, 207 (terms shall be implied only when necessary "to give effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties" as interpreted by a neutral, reasonable third party – the "officious bystander" test)
Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 is an important English contract law and company law case. In the field of contracts it is well known for MacKinnon LJ's decision in the Court of Appeal, where he put forth the "officious bystander" formulation for determining what terms should be implied into agreements by the courts.
Bystander effect; Cheerleader effect; Cinderella effect; Cocktail party effect; Contrast effect; Coolidge effect; Crespi effect; Cross-race effect; Curse of knowledge; Diderot effect; Dunning–Kruger effect; Einstellung effect; Endowment effect; Face superiority effect; False fame effect; False-consensus effect; False-uniqueness effect; Fan ...
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 ...
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1976] UKHL 1 is a leading English contract law case concerning the basis on which courts may imply terms into contracts; in particular in relation to all types of tenancies (including leases of land), a term may be implied if required for a particular relationship, such as for the landlord to keep the stairwells clear in a tower block.
The courts often deploy the officious-bystander test [51] [52] to determine whether or not a contract contains a tacit term, imagining that an impartial bystander had been present at the conclusion of the contract and had asked what might happen in a situation the parties had not expressly foreseen: If the answer is self-evident to the parties ...