|
The Eurymedon
''New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v. A. M. Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd.'', or ''The Eurymedon'' () is a leading case on contract law by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This 1974 case establishes the conditions when a third party may seek the protection of an exclusion clause in a contract between two parties. Facts A Drilling rig, drilling machine was to be shipped from Liverpool to Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. The bill of lading stipulated the limited liability of the carrier. It further stated that the clause would extend to servants, agents, and any independent contractors, which is often referred to as a "Himalaya clause". The carrier company was a subsidiary of the company that also owned the stevedore operation that unloaded the drill. Due to negligence the stevedores damaged the drill while unloading it. The stevedores claimed protection of the immunity clause in the contract between the carrier and Satterthwaite. Judgement This case had facts on all fours ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Lord Wilberforce
Richard Orme Wilberforce, Baron Wilberforce, (11 March 1907 – 15 February 2003) was a British judge. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1964 to 1982. Early life and career Born in Jalandhar, India, Richard Wilberforce was the son of Samuel Wilberforce, ICS, later a judge of the Lahore High Court, and of Katherine Wilberforce, the daughter of John Sheepshanks, Bishop of Norwich. His grandfather was Reginald Wilberforce, who helped restore British order in Delhi, after the Indian Rebellion of 1857. His great-grandfather was Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester, and his great-great-grandfather was the abolitionist William Wilberforce, a connection which had much influence upon him. Wilberforce spent the first seven years of his life in India, before being sent to England in 1914 on the outbreak of the First World War. He attended five preparatory schools, the last being Sandroyd School. From Sandroyd he went to Winchester College in 1920 where Monty Rendall, the h ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Privity
Privity is the legal term for a close, mutual, or successive relationship to the same right of property or the power to enforce a promise or warranty. It is an important concept in contract law. Contract law {{main article, Privity of contract The principle of privity in the common law's law of contract dictates that persons may not reap the benefits nor suffer the burdens of a contract to which they were not a party. Under the doctrine, if a consumer bought goods from a retailer who had originally bought them from the manufacturer, then, if the goods proved faulty, the consumer should sue the retailer. The consumer could not sue the manufacturer in contract law because no contract existed between them. The retailer could then counterclaim against the manufacturer. In most cases, however, consumers may rely on the manufacturer's guarantee that will have been assigned to them. In England, the leading privity case was '' Tweddle v Atkinson'' 861EWHC J57 (QB), but this case immedi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Committee Of The Privy Council Cases On Appeal From New Zealand
The judiciary (also known as the judicial system, judicature, judicial branch, judiciative branch, and court or judiciary system) is the system of courts that adjudicates legal disputes/disagreements and interprets, defends, and applies the law in legal cases. Definition The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets, defends, and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary can also be thought of as the mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make statutory law (which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets, defends, and applies the law to the facts of each case. However, in some countries the judiciary does make common law. In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws an ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Contract Case Law
English usually refers to: * English language * English people English may also refer to: Peoples, culture, and language * ''English'', an adjective for something of, from, or related to England ** English national identity, an identity and common culture ** English language in England, a variant of the English language spoken in England * English languages (other) * English studies, the study of English language and literature * ''English'', an Amish term for non-Amish, regardless of ethnicity Individuals * English (surname), a list of notable people with the surname ''English'' * People with the given name ** English McConnell (1882–1928), Irish footballer ** English Fisher (1928–2011), American boxing coach ** English Gardner (b. 1992), American track and field sprinter Places United States * English, Indiana, a town * English, Kentucky, an unincorporated community * English, Brazoria County, Texas, an unincorporated community * Engli ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Harvela Investments Ltd V Royal Trust Of Canada (CI) Ltd
''Harvela Investments Ltd. v Royal Trust of Canada (CI) Ltd.'' 9861 AC 207 UK House of Lords, 11 July 1985, accessed 8 November 2020 is a legal case decided by the in 1986 defining the regarding referential bids in [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pao On V Lau Yiu Long
''Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long'' consideration and duress in English law">duress. It is relevant for English contract law. Facts Fu Chip Investment Co. Ltd., a newly formed public company, majority owned by Lau Yiu Long and his younger brother Benjamin (the defendants), wished to buy a building called "Wing On", owned by Tsuen Wan Shing On Estate Co. Ltd. ("Shing On"), whose majority shareholder was Pao On and family (the claimants). Instead of simply selling the building for cash, Lau and Pao did a swap deal for the shares in their companies. Shing On would get 4.2m $1 shares in Fu Chip, and Fu Chip bought all the shares of Shing On. Fu Chip bought all the shares in Shing On, and Pao received as payment 4.2m shares in Fu Chip (worth $2.50 for each $1 share). To ensure the share price of Fu Chip suffered no shock, Pao agreed not to sell 60% of the shares for at least one year. Also, in case the share price dropped in that year, Lau agreed to buy 60% of the shares back from Pao at $2. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
''Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company'' Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its treatment of contract and of puffery in advertising, for its curious subject matter associated with medical quackery, and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley and Bowen) developed the law in inventive ways. ''Carlill'' is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies in the law of contract. The case concerned a influenza, flu remedy called the "carbolic smoke ball". The manufacturer advertised that buyers who found it did not work would be awarded £100, a considerable amount of money at the time. The company was found to have been bound by its advertisement, which was construed as an offer which the buyer, by using the smoke ball, accepted, creating a co ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Third Party Beneficiary
A third-party beneficiary, in the law of contracts, is a person who may have the right to sue on a contract, despite not having originally been an active party to the contract. This right, known as a ''ius quaesitum tertio'', arises when the third party ('' tertius'' or ''alteri'') is the intended beneficiary of the contract, as opposed to a mere incidental beneficiary (''penitus extraneus''). It vests when the third party relies on or assents to the relationship, and gives the third party the right to sue either the promisor (''promittens'', or performing party) or the promisee (''stipulans'', or anchor party) of the contract, depending on the circumstances under which the relationship was created. A contract made in favor of a third party is known as a "third-party beneficiary contract." Under traditional common law, the ''ius quaesitum tertio'' principle was not recognized, instead relying on the doctrine of privity of contract, which restricts rights, obligations, and liabili ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Privity In English Law
Privity is a doctrine in English contract law that covers the relationship between parties to a contract and other parties or agents. At its most basic level, the rule is that a contract can neither give rights to, nor impose obligations on, anyone who is not a party to the original agreement, i.e. a "third party". Historically, third parties could enforce the terms of a contract, as evidenced in '' Provender v Wood'', but the law changed in a series of cases in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the most well known of which are '' Tweddle v Atkinson'' in 1861 and '' Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge and Co Ltd'' in 1915. The doctrine was widely seen as unfair, for various reasons – it made no exception for cases where the parties to a contract obviously intended for it to be enforced by a third party, and it was so inconsistently applied that it provided no solid rule and was therefore "bad" law. The doctrine attracted criticism from figures such as Lord Scarman, Lord Dennin ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Privity
Privity is the legal term for a close, mutual, or successive relationship to the same right of property or the power to enforce a promise or warranty. It is an important concept in contract law. Contract law {{main article, Privity of contract The principle of privity in the common law's law of contract dictates that persons may not reap the benefits nor suffer the burdens of a contract to which they were not a party. Under the doctrine, if a consumer bought goods from a retailer who had originally bought them from the manufacturer, then, if the goods proved faulty, the consumer should sue the retailer. The consumer could not sue the manufacturer in contract law because no contract existed between them. The retailer could then counterclaim against the manufacturer. In most cases, however, consumers may rely on the manufacturer's guarantee that will have been assigned to them. In England, the leading privity case was '' Tweddle v Atkinson'' 861EWHC J57 (QB), but this case immedi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Contract Law
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth (such as Australia, Canada, India), from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights. Generally a contract forms when one person makes an offer, and another person accepts it by communicating their assent or performing the offer's terms. If the terms are certain, and the parties can be presumed from their ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Richard Wilberforce, Baron Wilberforce
Richard Orme Wilberforce, Baron Wilberforce, (11 March 1907 – 15 February 2003) was a British judge. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1964 to 1982. Early life and career Born in Jalandhar, India, Richard Wilberforce was the son of Samuel Wilberforce, ICS, later a judge of the Lahore High Court, and of Katherine Wilberforce, the daughter of John Sheepshanks, Bishop of Norwich. His grandfather was Reginald Wilberforce, who helped restore British order in Delhi, after the Indian Rebellion of 1857. His great-grandfather was Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Winchester, and his great-great-grandfather was the abolitionist William Wilberforce, a connection which had much influence upon him. Wilberforce spent the first seven years of his life in India, before being sent to England in 1914 on the outbreak of the First World War. He attended five preparatory schools, the last being Sandroyd School. From Sandroyd he went to Winchester College in 1920 where Monty Rendall, the he ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
