time that the flats became fully occupied in mid-1945. However‚ he continued in an obiter statement that if Central London had tried to claim for the full rent from 1940 onwards‚ they would not have been able to. This was reasoned on the basis that if a party leads another party to believe that he will not enforce his strict legal rights‚ then the Courts will prevent him from doing so at a later stage. This obiter remark was not actually a binding precedent‚ yet it essentially created the doctrine
Premium Common law Renting
2010 Business Law Revision Booklet The Business Law final exam is 3 hours with 10 minutes of reading time. HOW TO ANSWER CASE STUDY QUESTIONS When answering this question student’s need to follow the format of: i) state the issue ii) state the law-this includes relevant legislation and cases iii) apply the law to the facts iv) state the conclusion Key words used in questions: Explain – students need to provide
Premium Contract Tort Common law
ASPECTS OF CONTRACTS AND NEGLIGENCE FOR BUSINESS . MODULE CODE: Y/601/0563 LECTURER: MR. DALTON VINCENT STUDENT: HNDB 5366 CONSTANTIN VALENTIN IONESCU CONTENT: LO1. Understanding the essential elements of a valid contract in a business context…3 P1.1. Explain the importance of the essential elements required for the formation of a valid contract……………………………………………………………………………………….3 P1.2. Discuss the impact of different types of contract………………………………………3
Premium Contract
* IPAAC * Issues e.g. whether there was a breach of duty * Principles e.g. Breach if burden of harm was not great * Authorities e.g. Woods v Multi sport holdings ltd * Applications e.g. The burden of using helmets was significant * Conclusion e.g. there is no breach Law of Contract Terms of the contract * Express terms * Terms stated and agreed to by parties * In simple cases‚ terms stated in offer * Eg‚ $ reward for cat
Premium Contract Tort
The change in American Society The legacy of the privacy rights doctrine points to the permanent problem of Court efforts to deal with changing social needs‚ values‚ and interests though appeal of traditional norms long supportive of quite different relationships. The right of privacy affirmed in Griswold still stands‚ but clearly is jeopardized by increasingly restrictive Court rulings on protections for abortion‚ its most important doctrinal application. More inside! 6/21/12 Griswold v
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Law
Issue “The mere existence of the core elements of offer‚ acceptance‚ and consideration will not guarantee a legally enforceable contract”. Discuss. A contract is an agreement which normally consists of an ’offer ’ and an ’acceptance ’ and involves the ’meeting of the minds ’ or consensus between two or more parties with the intention to create a legally enforceable binding contract. Therefore in this essay‚ the four core elements needed for the formation of a contract such as offer‚ acceptance
Premium Contract Contract law
Contract Law Introduction In the following case note I will examine the High Court case; Smart Telecom Plc. V Radio Teilefis Eireann & Glanbia Plc. [2006] IEHC 176. The essence of this case is one involving a request for tenders put forward by RTE for sponsorship and the subsequent refusal of Smart Telecom’s referential bid thereto. The questions raised were (1) whether referential bidding was a permissible term of RTE’s offer and (2) if not‚ were they were obliged to re-tender the contract
Premium Contract
Part 1. Judicial Precedent “Stare decesis et non quieta movere” – roughly translated means “Stand by what has been decided and do not unsettle the established” - This is the main legal principle‚ which judges are obliged to follow the already set-up precedents‚ established by prior decisions. This means that a decision made in one case can be binding on all following cases under similar circumstances. The principle of stare decisis consists of two components. The first is the rule that a decision
Premium Common law Stare decisis
Introduction This assignment is regarding the Liebeck vs McDonalds case back in 1992. The issues involved are discussed thoroughly as well as the difference between consumer protection laws in Malaysia and also the United States where the case took place. This assignment will also discuss the implications of the case and also businesses/consumers responsibility when handling accident prone products. Question 1 Major issues 1. The 180 degrees coffee caused full thickness or third degree
Premium Product liability Consumer protection Tort
negligence‚ concerning whether InterUrban is liable in damages to Jim and Betty. Jim’s claim: To prove InterUrban was negligent‚ Jim must‚ on a balance of probabilities‚ show the following: 1) a duty of care was owed to him. Under Donoghue v Stevenson‚ this is shown by fulfilment of the ‘neighbour test’ that it was reasonably foreseeable that InterUrban’s omission to effectively warn of the
Premium Tort law Tort Duty of care