Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the United States, this rule still exists at common law. However, the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") dispenses with it in § 2-207 (but it can also be argued that § 2-207(1) enforces the mirror image rule). [6] Therefore, its applicability depends upon what law governs. Most states have adopted the UCC, which governs transactions in goods.
A principal consequence of the doctrine of privity is that, at common law, a third party generally has no right to enforce a contract to which they are not a party, even where that contract was entered into by the contracting parties specifically for their benefit and with a common intention among all of them that they should be able to enforce it.
Mirror image rule, counter offer, standard form contracts Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 [ 1 ] is a leading English contract law case. It concerns the problem found among some large businesses, with each side attempting to get their preferred standard form agreements to be the basis for a contract.
Some of them have argued, as above, that the case has limited precedential value, or that (even though it was a federal court case) it has no application outside of the state of New York. [8] Others who reject the judgment on the Bridgeman case have pointed to Schiffer Publishing v. Chronicle Books as providing a contrary decision. [9]
The traditional notion that courts won't look into the adequacy of consideration, an ancient notion in the English common law, doesn't square with the benefit-detriment theory (in which courts are implicitly analyzing if the parties are receiving a sufficient benefit) but does square with the bargain theory (in which only the subjective ...
Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions.
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is an opinion given by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape by holding that a local government is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code: Civil action for deprivation of rights. [1]