Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Limitation clause: The clause places a limit on the amount that can be claimed for a breach of contract, regardless of the actual loss. Time limitation: The clause states that an action for a claim must be commenced within a certain period of time or the cause of action becomes extinguished.
An exculpatory clause is generally only enforceable if it does not conflict with existing public policy. [2] The two other prerequisites for an exculpatory clause to be valid are that the contract must pertain to the involved parties' private affairs, and each of the involved parties must be free bargaining agents to the contract in question ...
The rule spells out four exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility: evidence of a party's ownership of liability insurance—or of a party's failure to own liability insurance—is admissible to prove (1) a witness' bias or prejudice, i.e. for witness impeachment; (2) agency; (3) ownership; and (4) control.
The parol evidence rule is a rule in common law jurisdictions limiting the kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract [1] and precluding parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation ...
Definition and use English pron a fortiori: from stronger An a fortiori argument is an "argument from a stronger reason", meaning that, because one fact is true, a second (related and included) fact must also be true. / ˌ eɪ f ɔːr t i ˈ oʊ r aɪ, ˌ eɪ f ɔːr ʃ i ˈ oʊ r aɪ / a mensa et thoro: from table and bed
In United States law, a declaration (or statement) against interest is an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that they would not have made the statement unless they believed the statement was true. For example, if a ...
The term statute of frauds comes from the Statute of Frauds, an act of the Parliament of England (29 Chas. 2 c. 3) passed in 1677 (authored by Lord Nottingham assisted by Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Francis North and Sir Leoline Jenkins [2] and passed by the Cavalier Parliament), the long title of which is: An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.
The modern trend in the U.S. is that the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose applies in the real-estate context to only the sale of new residential housing by a builder-seller and that the caveat emptor rule applies to all other real-estate sale situations (e.g. homeowner to buyer). [3]