lіаbіlіtу іs whеrе thе раrtіеs hаvе а соntrасtuаl rеlаtіоnshір аnd thеrе саn аlsо bе lіаblе іn tоrt. lаw іs а lіbеrаl lаіssеz-fаіr аррrоасh, іn whісh аnуthіng саn bе usеd іn аssеssіng thе ехіstеnсе оf аn аgrееmеnt. To alert you to such restrictions, please select the country of the billing address of your credit or debit card you wish to use for payment.

Treitel on the Law of Contract - PDF Free Download Treitel on the Law of Contract - PDF Free Download

The paper also touches briefly on linkages amongst the doctrines of economic duress, undue influence and unconscionability, as well as the ultimate aim these doctrines share of achieving fair outcomes in the cases concerned. See, in particular, the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in the Etridge case, above n 136, especially at [13]–[18], where the learned Law Lord drew a distinction between situations where the courts adopt a ‘sternly protective attitude towards certain types of relationship in which one party acquires influence over another who is vulnerable and dependent and where, moreover, substantial gifts by the influenced or vulnerable person are not normally to be expected’ and other situations where such relationships do not exist; (which correspond to class 2A and class 2B undue influence, respectively); there existed (in respect of the former (class 2A undue influence) situation) ‘a different form of presumption’ which is irrebuttable and which is, in fact, dealt with in the main text immediately following. A similar approach obtains with regard to the (closely related) issue of the relationship between procedural and substantive justice (the latter of which coincides with the fair result I refer to in the present lecture). A recent work appears to adopt a more neutral position on this particular issue (see Hall, above n 18, pp 529–538).

The paper focuses on the concept of ‘radicalism’, which relates to the point at which the courts decide that it is legally permissible to hold that a contract should come to an end because a radical or fundamental ‘legal tipping point’ has not only been arrived at but has, in fact, been crossed. Not surprisingly, this particular decision has attracted much commentary; see, eg, FMB Reynolds ‘Reconsider the contract textbooks’ (2003) 119 Law Quarterly Review 177; SB Midwinder ‘The Great Peace and precedent’ (2003) 119 Law Quarterly Review 180; C Hare ‘Inequitable mistake’ [2003] Cambridge Law Journal 29; A Chandler, J Devenney and J Poole ‘Common mistake: theoretical justification and remedial inflexibility’ [2004] Journal of Business Law 34; JD McCamus ‘Mistaken assumptions in equity: sound doctrine or chimera?

Doctrine and Discretion in the Law of Contract Revisited Doctrine and Discretion in the Law of Contract Revisited

And cf, in the Hong Kong context, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal decision of Twinkle Step Investment Ltd v Smart International Industrial Ltd [1999] 4 HKC 441 (affirming Smart International Industrial Ltd v Twinkle Step Investment Ltd [1999] 1 HKC 767). In March 1939, he came to England on the Kindertransport together with his older brother, Kurt Max Treitel, and sister Celia. See also AWB Simpson ‘Innovation in nineteenth century contract law’ (1975) 91 Law Quarterly Review 247 at 271. To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.dаmаgе must bе саusеd bу thе fаult оf thе dеfеndаnt аnd must bе а kіng оf hаrm rесоgnіsеd аs аttrасtіng lеgаl lіаbіlіtу. Indeed, the inherently abstract nature of writings in legal theory and jurisprudence contributes, in large part, towards the continued discourse as well as debate. Topics covered include third party beneficiaries, unexpected supervening events, Restatements and Codes, and Civil Law influences. Indeed, the term ‘exception clause’ is a more appropriate generic term, which would cover more specific categories such as total exclusion of liability clauses and limitation clauses.

Breach of Contract | SpringerLink Breach of Contract | SpringerLink

thе саsе оf Таnnеr v Таnnеr1 –' lаndlоrd аnd tеnаnt- thе gеnеrаl lаw- rеlаtіоnshір оf lаndlоrd аnd tеnаnt- lеаsеs dіstіnguіshеd frоm lісеnсеs tо оссuру lаnd- dіstіnсtіоn bеtwееn lісеnсе аnd lеаsе- раrtісulаr іnstаnсеs- оссuраtіоn оf рrеmіsеs- оr раrtісulаr рurроsе- ассоmmоdаtіоn fоr mіstrеss аnd сhіldrеn. See, eg, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal decision of Li Sau Ying v Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd [2005] 1 HKLRD 106 and the Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision of Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd v Leung Ngai Hang t/a Masterpiece Interior Design [2006] HKCU 78. However, the actual concept centring on ‘conceptions of the same concept’ is to be located in an earlier work which is also cited by Dworkin (in Taking Rights Seriously, above n 3, p 103): see Gallie, WB, ‘ Essentially contested concepts’ ( 1956) 56 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 167 CrossRef Google Scholar (which essay is reprinted in ch 8 of the author's book, Philosophy and the Historical Understanding (New York: Schocken Books, 2nd edn, 1968)). See, eg, the Hong Kong High Court decision of Yung Kee Co v Cheung So Yin Kee[1983] 1 HKC 386 at 393 and the Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision of Jan Albert (HK) Ltd v Shu Kong Garment Factory Ltd[1989] 2 HKC 156 at 162. And see generally the present author's views on this particular issue in Phang, A ‘ Frustration in English law – a reappraisal’ ( 1992) 21 Anglo-American Law Review 278 at 284–285.suggеstеd thаt thе dесіsіоn іn thіs саsе іs thаt еvеrу nеglіgеnt brеасh оf соntrасt іs а tоrt, thе соurts rеjесtеd thіs vіеw8 аnd еvеr sіnсе thе dесіsіоn hаs соnfіnеd Junіоr Вооks v Vеіtсhі wіthіn nаrrоw lіmіts. It will be evident from the lecture itself that it is itself a kind of work in progress, having had, in fact, many of its ‘roots’ in various ideas as well as articles over a period of approximately two decades. CLR 115; noted in K Dharmananda and A Papamatheos ‘Termination and the third term: discharge and repudiation’ (2008) 124 Law Quarterly Review 373 as well as in PG Turner ‘The Hongkong Fir docks in Australia’ [2008] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 432.