DISCHARGEMENT OF CONTRACT The law of contracts forms a substantial part of our various relationships that can have some sort of influence over us on an almost daily basis – even when there is no physical contract in front of us we may still be privy to some sort of contractual obligation. Alternatively‚ if you’re a fan of social theorists such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau‚ you may argue that we’re also bound by ‘the social contract’‚ but we digress. Getting back to our original point‚ the law of contracts
Premium Contract Breach of contract Tort
CONTRACT LAW – LECTURE 4 Promissory estoppel Is about the enforceability of all alteration promises (promises to pay more and promises to accept less) and by contrast estoppels does not apply to promises about the formation of initial contracts Ex. If a creditor promises to accept a smaller sum in full settlement intending the debtor to rely on that promise‚ and the debtor does rely on it‚ the debtor may have a defence of promissory estoppels when sued for the balance by the creditor. The promise
Premium Common law Contract
first we need to identify if there is a legal binding contract‚ a contract is a agreement which the law will enforce‚ a contract is a part of common law‚ common law is also called custom law‚ it is made by the judge to protect the community against the crimes‚ when an issue goes to court and there is no statue law that covers it‚ a judge will hear the case and issue a verdict. the record of this verdict becomes a precedent so that when similar cases arise‚ other judges may take into account the penalty
Premium Management Strategic management Marketing
Business Law Assignment; Mistake in contract law‚ is a factual misunderstanding that may lead to a failure of a meeting of the minds. Unilateral mistake is mean that is only one party is mistaken‚ but the other party knows‚ or ought reasonably to be aware of the mistake. Contract may be void or voidable. Void is a contract that is no legal effect. While‚ voidable is an agreement that may be affirmed or rejected at the option of one of the party. The reason why Lord Denning took the view that these
Premium Contract Common law Arbitration
JUDGMENT V.N. Khare‚ CJI 1. This appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 23-11-2001 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam revolves round the question as to whether an arbitration clause in a contract agreement survives despite purported satisfaction thereof. 2. The parties to this appeal entered into an agreement for a project at Kayamkulam. Upon completion of the work the respondent herein submitted final bill which was allegedly not accepted by the appellant‚ where
Premium Arbitration Contract
By the case of Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was establish and the derivation of modern doctrine of it is to be found in the The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was first developed but was lost for some time until it was resurrected by Lord Denning in the leading case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd. Promissory estoppel There are three exceptions to the rule in Pinnel’s case. They are composite agreement‚ payment of debt
Premium Contract Common law Law
Transcript(s) Full text of judgment Judge(s) sitting Willes J‚ Byles J and Keating J Felthouse v Bindley (1862) EWHC CP J 35‚ is the leading English contract law case on the rule that one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one ’s offer. This is sometimes misleadingly expressed as a rule that "silence cannot amount to acceptance". Later the case has been rethought‚ because it appeared that on the facts‚ acceptance was communicated by conduct (see‚ Brogden v Metropolitan Railway). Furthermore
Premium Contract Plaintiff Defendant
Assignement 1 contracts Sayres v. Wheatland Group‚ L.L.C.‚ 79 Va. Cir. 504 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009) CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that the contract for the construction and sale of a home that was at issue in this case was void‚ invalid‚ and unenforceable. Plaintiff also alleged that he was entitled to rescission and cancellation of the same contract. Defendants filed a counterclaim for specific performance of the contract of sale. Plaintiff moved
Premium Contract
OUTLINE OF LECTURE IN LAW ON CONTRACTS (Defective Contracts) 1. Defective contracts a. Rescissible contract – valid until rescinded; b. Voidable contract – valid until annulled; c. Unenforceable contract – cannot be sued upon or enforced unless ratified; d. Void contract – no effect at all‚ cannot be ratified or validated 2. Rescission Rescission is the remedy granted by law to the contracting parties and sometimes even to third persons in order to recover indemnity
Premium Contract
transfer of house is acceptable and valid under Sec 26 of CA 1950. The law applicable are Sec 26 of CA has stated that agreement made without consideration is void. According to Sec 2(d) of CA‚ consideration is an act or abstinence or promise by the promisee or any other person as required by the promisor in return for his promise. Literally‚ it means something that is given in return for something else. On the other hand‚ there was an exceptions under Sec 26 of CA which is an agreement without
Premium Contract Adoption