Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy. The formal fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form: [1] A or B A Therefore, not B. Or in logical operators:
Pacta sunt servanda [1] ("agreements must be kept.") is a brocard and a fundamental principle of law which holds that treaties or contracts are binding upon the parties that entered into the treaty or contract. [2] It is customary international law. [3]
Non est factum (Latin for "it is not [my] deed") is a defence in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of an agreement "which is fundamentally different from what he or she intended to execute or sign". [1] A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its ...
If a person were to accept an offer, but make a modification, then they are actually rejecting the offer presented to them and are proposing a counter-offer: Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353. That modifying party is then the one making a new offer, and the original offeror is now the one who has to accept.
The test of whether one has acted in good faith is a subjective one; the cases suggest honesty, and possibly also reasonably. There is no general obligation to act in good faith term under English contract law: an attempt was made by Lord Denning in a series of case during the 70s and 80s but they are no longer considered 'good law'. European ...
Nonetheless, the person performing the act must do it in reliance on the offer. [12] A unilateral contract differs from a bilateral contract, where there is an exchange of promises between two parties. For example, if one party promises to buy a car and the other party promises to sell a car, that is a bilateral contract.
Suppose a contract is executed in due form and in writing to deliver a lecture, mentioning no time. One of the parties thinks that the promise will be construed to mean at once, within a week. The other thinks that it means when he is ready. The court says that it means within a reasonable time.
Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"), [1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.