Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1995] UKHL 8 is an English contract law case, concerning the choice between an award of damages for the cost of curing a defect in a building contract or (when that is unreasonable) for awarding damages for loss of "amenity".
This decision by the Supreme Court to not allow exemptions confirmed that Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was a strong substantive provision and helped shape federal environmental law. [2] The case is commonly cited as an example of the strict construction-plain meaning canon of construction, and the equitable principle that courts ...
Construction law builds upon general legal principles and methodologies and incorporates the regulatory framework (including security of payment, planning, environmental and building regulations); contract methodologies and selection (including traditional and alternative forms of contracting); subcontract issues; causes of action, and liability, arising in contract, negligence and on other ...
McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Spearin , 248 U.S. 132 (1918), also referred to as the Spearin doctrine , is a 1918 United States Supreme Court decision. It remains one of the landmark construction law cases. [ 1 ]
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the minority set-aside program of Richmond, Virginia, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found ...
Pages in category "United States contract case law" ... Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court ... SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business ...
Lists of case law cover instances of case law, legal decisions in which the law was analyzed to resolve ambiguities for deciding current cases. They are organized ...
He wrote, "The case should have been dismissed as improperly granted, as the decision of the trial court that a total taking had occurred is highly questionable on the basis of the facts presented" because "The petition for review was granted on the assumption that the state [of South Carolina], by regulation, had deprived the owner of his ...