Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
The dispute began in the late 1980s, when video rental shops began to rent computer software to capitalize on the growing software industry. This practice was legal, thanks to the first-sale doctrine which allows anyone to distribute an instance of a copyrighted work that they have legally purchased.
Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (Mich. 1887), [1] was a case that has played an important role in the evolution of American contract law involving the doctrine of mutual mistake. One of the main issues in the case was whether the remedy of rescission is available if both parties to a contract share a misunderstanding about an essential fact. [2]
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. [1] The case is a significant precedent on the matter of the applicability of American contract law to new types of shrinkwrap licenses that arose with home computing and the Internet in the 1990s, and whether such licenses are enforceable contracts.
Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts; Foakes v Beer [1] (1884) on part payments of debt (with a notable dissenting opinion by Lord Blackburn) The Hong Kong Fir (1961) on innominate terms, allowing the court remedial flexibility
Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929), [1] is a leading case on damages in contracts handed down by the New Hampshire Supreme Court.It has come to be known as the "Hairy Hand" case from the circumstances, because a subsequent decision uses the phrase.
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!
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 ...