Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For such a contract to be set aside for unfairness, the second party had to be active in obtaining an unfair contract. In this case the Privy Council held that Mr. Harts conduct was "beyond reproach", emphasising that most of the sale terms and conditions were proposed by the trust's own solicitor, which Mr Hart merely accepted.
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (1993), alternatively titled Minors Oposa v.Factoran or Minors Oposa, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognizing the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility on the environment in the Philippine legal system.
The Moorcock 14 P.D. 64 (1889): the concept of implied terms in contract law. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256: establishing the test for formation of a contract. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge and Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 847: confirming privity of contract: only a party to a contract can be sued on it. (This principle was ...
An Act creating three (3) additional Shari'a Judicial Districts and twelve (12) Shari'a Circuit Courts therein, and appropriating funds therefor, amending for the purpose Articles 138, 147, and 150 of Presidential Decree No. 1083, otherwise known as the "Code of Muslim Personal Laws in the Philippines [84]", as amended, and the relevant ...
The prewar Philippine Supreme Court tried to inject these passages, but were prohibited from doing so by the American colonial government in Manila. Notable in the Philippine version of the chant is the use of the more familiar term "hear ye" over the archaic Law French term oyez.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
In mid-May 2010—which was after the summary judgment had been made finding liability, but well before damages had been capped and before the RIAA sought per-infringement damages—blogger Miles Harrison, on his slashparty blog (now defunct), reviewed court documents and estimated the potential damages being sought at $15 trillion. [41]
Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution (2006) by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell; Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract (2008) by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell; Landmark Cases in Family Law (2011) by Stephen Gilmore, Jonathan Herring and Rebecca Probert; Landmark Cases in Equity (2012) by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell; Landmark ...