When.com Web Search

Search results

1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network

2. Rescission (contract law) - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission_(contract_law)

   First, where a party to a contract exercises an express right of termination, he or she is sometimes said to have exercised a right to rescind the contract. Secondly, where a party is faced with a repudiation, the party can elect to terminate the contract; this too has often been referred to as an election to rescind. "Rescission" at common law.

3. Termination for convenience - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_for_convenience

   A termination for convenience clause, or "T for C" clause, [1] enables a party to a contract to bring the contract to an end without the need to establish that the other party is in default, for example because the client party's needs have changed, or in order to arrange for another party to complete the contract.

4. Rescission - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission

   Rescission is the noun form of the verb "to rescind." It may refer to: Rescission (contract law) Rescission bill, a procedure to rescind previously appropriated funding in the United States

5. Can a seller back out of a real estate contract? - AOL

   www.aol.com/finance/seller-back-real-estate...

   Coming to a mutual agreement: In some cases, simply asking the buyer to cancel the contract may work. If the seller doesn’t have cause, the buyer is not required to agree, but it doesn’t hurt ...

6. Mistake (contract law) - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)

   Mistake of law is when a party enters into a contract without the knowledge of the law in the country. The contract is affected by such mistakes, but it is not void. The reason here is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. However, if a party is induced to enter into a contract by the mistake of law then such a contract is not valid. [3]

7. Anticipatory repudiation - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticipatory_repudiation

   The Privy Council ruled in 1966 that a party who asserts "a genuinely held but erroneous view as to the effect of the contract" should not be treated as in repudiation, but in the case of Vaswani v Italian Motors, a car seller's conduct went beyond mere assertion of such an opinion, and in demanding more money for a sale than the agreed price ...