Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Mr Mardon was buying a petrol station franchised by Esso Petroleum Co Ltd. Esso told him they had estimated that the throughput of a petrol station in Eastbank Street, Southport, would be 200,000 gallons a year; however, the local council had made a decision regarding planning permission which meant that there would be no direct access from the main street and therefore fewer customers.
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...
Derry v Peek [1889] UKHL 1 is a case on English contract law, fraudulent misstatement, and the tort of deceit. Derry v Peek established a 3-part test for fraudulent misrepresentation, [1] whereby the defendant is fraudulent if he: (i) knows the statement to be false, [2] or (ii) does not believe in the statement, [3] or (iii) is reckless as to ...
Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd [2017] IESC 38, is a decision of the Irish Supreme Court in which the court held that a purchaser bears the risk of reliance on erroneous information unless the vendor has clearly assumed responsibility for its accuracy.
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability denied, 361 F. Supp. 108 (N.D. Ill. 1973), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 512 F.2d 324; cert. granted, 423 U.S. 820 (1975). Holding A misstated or omitted fact in a proxy solicitation is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it ...
[1] The two causes of action will be considered in succession, first the one for negligence and second that for fraud. (1) We think the evidence supports a finding that the audit was negligently made, though in so saying we put aside for the moment the question whether negligence, even if it existed, was a wrong to the plaintiff.
He said, [1] It is true that if he had not supposed he would have a charge he would not have taken the debentures; but if he also relied on the misstatement in the prospectus, his loss nonetheless resulted from that misstatement. It is not necessary to show that the misstatement was the sole cause of his acting as he did.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Privy Council [2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the ...