Business Law TRI 1‚ 2011 Assessment 1 3) Norris had decided for some time that he wanted to purchase a motel. After looking at several different areas‚ he settled on Port Stephens in New South Wales as offering him both the potential for a business and the lifestyle he was seeking. He rang a number of real estate agents‚ inquiring whether they had any motels listed for sale. He finally found a motel and general business listed with an estate agent called Evatt. Evatt told Norris that once he got
Premium Law Real estate Negligence
Unit 5: Aspects of Contract & Negligence for Business | By Abdul Mir: FCS#307035 | Mark & Jodie Jones | Contents Task 1: Formation of a Contract 3 Offer & Acceptance 3 Acceptance 3 Modes of acceptance & E-Contracts 4 Consideration 4 Intention to Create Legal Relation 5 Capacity to contract 5 Blue Chip v Evershed 5 Task 2: Exclusion & Limitation Clauses 6 Contractual Terms 7 Conditions 7 Warranties 7 Innominate Terms 7 Advantages&Disadvantages
Premium Contract
Indian Contract Act THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT‚ 1872 ACT No. 9 OF 1872 1 [25th April‚ 1872.] Preamble WHEREAS it is expedient to define and amend certain parts of the law relating to contracts ; It is hereby enacted as follows - PRELIMINARY 1- Short title – This Act may be called the Indian Contract Act‚ 1872. Extent‚ Commencements.-It extends to the whole of India 2*[except the State of Jammu and Kashmir]; and it shall come into force on the first day of September‚ 1872. Nothing
Premium Contract Law
enforce the promise? The fact that a promise has been made does not mean the promise can or will be enforced. Under the common law‚ a primary basis for the enforcement of promises is consideration. Consideration usually is defined as the value (such as cash) given in return for a promise (in a bilateral contract) or in return for a performance (in a unilateral contract) Something of legally sufficient value may consist of a promise to do something that one has no prior legal duty to do. The performance
Premium Contract Law Promise
Business Law “The doctrine laid down in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 has to be watched very carefully. It has often been supposed to cast a veil on the personality of a limited company through which the courts cannot see. But that is not true. The courts can‚ and often do‚ draw aside the veil. They can‚ and often do‚ pull off the mark. They look to see what really lies behind” - Lord Denning in Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v Inland revenue Commissioners [1969] 3 All ER 422.
Premium Corporation Law
Philip for a price 30 percent below market value‚ Philip will no longer support and take care of him. Jerome enters into the contract. Discuss fully whether Jerome can set aside this contract. Yes‚ I believe Jerome can set aside the contract because it was formed under undue influence and duress. Since Jerome is totally dependent on Philip for his support and the contract benefits the guardian by being able to purchase the land for below market price – this makes Jerome feel obligated because he
Premium Contract Contract law
Explain the facts‚ issues and reason in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. FACTS The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a product called the "smoke ball". It claimed to be a cure for influenza and a number of other diseases‚ in the context of the 1889-1890 flu pandemic (estimated to have killed 1 million people). The smoke ball was a rubber ball with a tube attached. It was filled with carbolic acid (or phenol). The tube would be inserted into a user’s nose and squeezed at the bottom
Premium Invitation to treat Contract Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Aspects of contracts and negligence in business Task 1 and 2 Unit 5 Lecturer: Mrs. Eunice Wahito Done by: Kaunain Assaria Table of contents Validity of contacts………………………………………………………………………….3-4 Types of contacts………………………………………………………………………….....5-7 Elements of a contract……………………………………………………………………....7-10 Consideration……………………………………………………………………………….10-11 Warranties and conditions…………………………………………………………………12-14 Law of tort……………………………………………………………………………………..15 Fault principle………………………………………………………………………………16-17
Premium Contract
Privity of Contract LGST101 Business Law Professor George Shenoy Group Members: Ue Mu En‚ Esther Goh Yue Lin‚ Sylvia Fong Li Chu Sabina Sun Chao Ng Shi Ya 1 Content Page 1. Case Summary 2. Can Brad sue Jennifer? 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Validity of Contract Breach of Contract Brad cannot sue Jennifer Brad can sue Jennifer 3. Can Angelina sue Jennifer? 3.1 3.2 Angelina cannot sue Jennifer Angelina can sue Jennifer 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 Contract (Rights of
Premium Contract Common law Breach of contract
THE LAW OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS CHAPTER 4 – Piercing the Corporate Veil Minne B Berkey v Third Avenue Railway Company Overview: This is a New York Court of Appeals decision in 1926 adjudicated by the legendary Justice Cardozo. In this seminal case on ‘piercing the corporate veil’‚ the Court of Appeals finds in favor of the Defendant‚ Third Avenue Railway Company. The Court holds that Third Avenue‚ the parent company of Forty-second Street Company‚ which operated a rail line upon which the
Premium Corporation Subsidiary Appeal