WEEK 9 – Agency distinguished from Sale (Art. 1458) Andres Quiroga vs Parsons Hardware Co. 38 Phil. 501 G.R. No. L-11491 Subject: Sales Doctrine: Contract of Agency to Sell vs Contract of Sale Facts: On Jan 24‚ 1911‚ plaintiff and the respondent entered into a contract making the latter an “agent” of the former. The contract stipulates that Don Andres Quiroga‚ here in petitioner‚ grants exclusive rights to sell his beds in the Visayan region to J. Parsons. The contract only stipulates that
Premium Contract Pleading Complaint
to all. To prove a case in public nuisance an individual needs to prove: Title to sue (that he or she is allowed to sue) – to sue‚ the plaintiff must have suffered damage exceeding that suffered by the rest of the public. Interference with a public right Defendant’s interference is substantial and unreasonable To prove a case in private nuisance the plaintiff must establish: Title to sue (only a person with rights in or over property has standing to sue) The defendant had knowledge of the nuisance
Premium Tort Tort law
Name: Danielle Kissi Course: Introduction to Law Professor: April Pitts Date: 10/30/2012 Assignment: Brief a Case page 282 Case Name: Gnazzo v. G.D. Searle & Co. 973 F 2nd 136 1992 U.S. App. Lexis 19453 United States Court of Appeals‚ Second Circuit Facts: In 1974‚ Gnazzo had an IUD implanted in her uterus as a contraceptive device. In 1975‚ Gnazzo experience painful cramping
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Roe v. Wade Abortion
touching to plaintiff or some logical extension of plaintiff ’s person. ii. For assault‚ the defendant must have intended to cause the plaintiff a reasonable belief that plaintiff was about to immediately suffer a battery. iii. For false imprisonment‚ the defendant must have intended to confine the plaintiff within some boundaries‚ from which plaintiff could not reasonably escape. iv. For trespass‚ defendant intentionally crossed the boundaries of plaintiff ’s land
Premium Tort Tort law Criminal law
Facts: Plaintiff is a minor alien‚ the sole survivor of a tragedy at sea‚ was rescued and placed in the care of his great uncle‚ Plaintiff temporary legal custodian‚ who filed asylum application on the minor’s behalf against the fathers wishes. This application was rejected by the Immigration and Naturalization Services as legally void. Plaintiff appealed to the District court‚ which was dismissed because the plaintiff’s father was the solely authorized to apply for the Plaintiffs asylum. Plaintiff
Free United States Appeal Supreme Court of the United States
where the amounts of the claims not exceeding RM 10‚000.00. It had been stated under Section 92 of Subordinate Courts Act 1948 where Second Class Magistrate shall have only jurisdiction to try original actions or suits of a civil nature where the Plaintiff seeks to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant with or without interest‚ not exceeding RM10‚000.00.1 According to Augustine Paul J‚ the Lordship in Tan Ah Chai v. Loke Jee Yah‚2 ‘‘Small claims procedure is to serve
Premium Small claims court
Case Background 1st Plaintiff – The World Food Fair Limited (formerly know as wealth state Investments Limited) 2nd Plaintiff – The World Enterprises Holdings Limited Defendant – Hong Kong Island Development Limited (Owner of shopping mall and two plaintiffs are the owners of retail shops) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1996‚ after conference‚ the plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant for breach of
Premium Contract Leasehold estate
LAW OF CONTRACT Subject Code : 101 TOPIC : VALUE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CONSIDERATION IN CONTRACT PRESENTED BY : NAME : Siddharth Dalabehera ROLL : 1283092 COURSE : BA LLB (B) UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF : MS. Jinia Kundu and MR. P. K. Ghosh ACKNOWLEDGMENT I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during
Premium Contract
elements that the plaintiff must prove; Defamation which are factual statements that are likely to harm someone’s reputation. The police officers argued that Mosby made statements that they deliberately ignored Grey’s injuries and cries for help. They stated in their lawsuit that this statement is defamatory because “they exposed Plaintiffs to public scorn‚ hatred and contempt‚ and thereby discouraging others in the community from having a favourable opinion of‚ or association with‚ Plaintiffs”. The second
Premium Law Crime Jury
(1947-51) 6831 The plaintiff‚ an apprentice employed in the defendants’ apprentice training school‚ was seriously injured by a practical joke played upon him by two fellow-apprentices. The Court of Appeal held the defendants not liable to the plaintiff in negligence‚ because his injury had occurred through an act of wilful misbehaviour which the defendants could not reasonably have foreseen. Waters v MPC (2000) 27 July 2000 From the speech of Lord Slynn: The plaintiff was a
Premium Employment Tort Law