Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy is a decision of the English Court of Appeal in English contract law, dealing with undue influence.One of the three judges hearing the case, Lord Denning MR, advanced the argument that under English law, all impairments of autonomy could be collected under a single principle of "inequality of bargaining power", but the other two judges were not drawn into commenting on ...
Alec Lobb Garages Ltd v Total Oil (GB) Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 173; Backhouse v Backhouse [1978] 1 WLR 243, 251, Balcombe J could not fit in an intelligent woman into the Fry v Lane criteria but citing Bundy said, obiter dicta, that entering a contract without independent advice because of "great emotional strain" could be another way the law could ...
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy (1975) QB, the equitable doctrine of unconscionable bargain can prevent transactions where a weaker party was exploited; Courtney and Fairbairn Ltd v Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 716, a contract cannot have terms that are to be negotiated at a later point.
Slade LJ held that because of National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] UKHL 2 "manifest disadvantage" had to be shown even in cases of actual undue influence. The transaction was not manifestly disadvantageous. This requirement was subsequently overruled by the House of Lords in CIBC Mortgages plc v Pitt [1993] UKHL 7 (21 October 1993).
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Applying the decision of Robert Goff J in Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 677 the Court of Appeal refused to order restitution of the sums paid. Because the payment was within the customer's mandate it was a duly authorised payment on behalf of the customer.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
The health system is asking for $7.5 million in damages, but the final amount will be left up to 12 jurors.