COMMERCIAL TENANCY LAW IN AUSTRALIA AJ BRADBROOK CE CROFT BUTTERWORTHS (1990) [1.04] the doubt which has been created results from a series of English decisions given in the course of the 1950s and 1960s. In 1952 Denning LJ (as he then was)‚ expressed the view that the test of exclusive possession was by no means decisive: Errington v Errington [1952] 1 All ER 149 at 297; [1952] 1 KB 290. His Lordship said that the difference between a tenancy and
Premium Law Common law Property
QUESTION Running late for his exciting evening law class‚ Sam desperately seeks out a car park in the CBD of Melbourne‚ state of Victoria Australia. He spots the car park operated by Citipark Ltd. Sam drives up a ramp which has raised concrete barriers on either side. As it is rush hour‚ there are a few cars in front of him and soon some more line up behind him. Sam stopped his car at the barrier entrance of the car park which had a mechanical arm preventing cars moving into the parking
Premium Parking Parking lot Parking space
Contract with Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd IMPORTANT NOTICE / DISCLAIMER This Contract is fictitious and prepared for the study purpose of the students of IIT Delhi. It does not have any legal authenticity and is not valid in the court of law or any part of India. Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding is executed at Ahmedabad on this 16.05.2016 by and between Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.‚ a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act‚
Premium Gentlemen's agreement Contract United Breweries Group
the defendants under the notion that they violated a covenant in their employee contracts. If the defendants were to be found guilty then the consequences would be an oppressive and unfair scenario. Therefore‚ the motion for preliminary injunction was denied in favor of the defendants. Facts: The defendants‚ upon being hired by Russell‚ entered into contracts which contained three relevant covenants in this case; not to compete with the plaintiffs‚ not to solicit the plaintiff’ customers‚ and
Premium Legal terms Defendant Plaintiff
The Current “Age of Accountability” Law in Light of Developmental Psychology Current Law Upheld Case Study Cassondra Winfrey May 24‚ 2011 In the case study provided‚ one can see many areas where the development of the child in question can be taken into consideration when looking at the case from a law standpoint. In any case involving children‚ one must always take into account their environment‚ their developmental age‚ and their true age. With each age group‚ there is a norm for development
Premium Law Childhood The Child
wider than is necessary to protect the legitimate interest of the employer. Attempting to stifle competition is impermissible and it is irrelevant that the employer taught the ex-employee everything he knows. The court area particular to prevent contracts‚ which seek to prevent an employee from practicing his livelihood. The courts have regard to three facts: - The period during which the restriction purports to apply. - The geographical area in which the restriction purports to apply. - The scope
Premium Contract Contract law
incidents‚ Lowell Wilson‚ the superintendent at Greif Brothers’ Youngstown plant‚ decided to hire a security company to guard Greif Brothers’ property. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO In April 1987‚ Wilson‚ on behalf of Greif Brothers‚ entered into a contract with Youngstown Security Patrol‚ Inc. (“YSP”) to supply a uniformed security guard to “deter theft [and] vandalism” on Greif Brothers’ property during specified hours. Wilson told YSP’s owner and president‚ Carl Testa‚ that he wanted the security
Premium Security guard
their ordinary‚ dictionary meaning‚ with no exceptions. Lord Esher stated in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892) that this should be done even if it leads to a ’manifest absurdity’. Judges who follow this rule‚ only apply the law and do not try to interpret the law. Advantages • Provides the will of parliament • Maintains the separation of powers • Encourages consistency Disadvantages • Harsh results • Absurd results • Rigid/ mechanical • Defeats parliaments intentions - Whiteley
Premium Marriage Parliament
P85‚000.00. The pertinent provision of the contract reads: 3. For and in consideration of the use of the leased premises and above-mentioned equipment‚ the LESSEE hereby agrees to pay the LESSOR a monthly rental of EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P85‚000.00) for the first year of this Contract reckoned from the date of signing. The monthly rental shall be payable within the first five days of each month without need of demand at the office of the LESSOR. In case of delay in the payment of the said monthly
Premium 1966 1970 Appeal
McCormick v Nowland (1985) ATPR 40-852 This case is to be contrasted with McCormick v Nowland (1985) ATPR 40-852 in which the vendor’s real estate agent falsely represented that the vendor’s house was made of brick and that the swimming pool in the back yard was adjacent to a public park. The Court here held that a real estate agent owes a duty of care to a purchaser with respect to the information supplied about the property. Pincus J found that the agent had been negligent in respect of the
Premium Real estate Law Common law