Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Kent 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) — The New York Court of Appeals ruled that a contracted homebuilder was entitled to full payment without tearing down and rebuilding the residence, simply because within it he had installed piping equal to, though a different brand name than, that which had been agreed upon in the contract.
Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921) is an American contract law case of the New York Court of Appeals with a majority opinion by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo.The case addresses several contract principles including applying the doctrine of substantial performance in preventing forfeiture and determining the appropriate remedy following a partial or defective performance.
Consideration is the central concept in the common law of contracts and is required, in most cases, for a contract to be enforceable. Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise. It can take a number of forms: money, property, a promise, the doing of an act, or even refraining from doing an act.
A contract award can be challenged and set aside if a protester can prove that either the contracting agency or the contract awardee did not comply with the requirements of the solicitation. A successful protest can result in reconsideration of the decision to award the contract or award of the contract to the protester in lieu of the original ...
Only an "interested party" has standing to challenge a federal contract award. In this context, an "interested party" is a company or person who bid for a contract, or a prospective bidder, whose "direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract" to another business. [64]
(Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Friday held that a trial judge correctly found that American Airlines' now-scrapped U.S. Northeast partnership with JetBlue Airways violated federal antitrust ...
The Facebook dispute was one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court this month involving the right of private litigants to hold companies to account for alleged securities fraud.
In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.