Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The history of contract law dates back to ancient civilizations and the development of contract law has been heavily influenced by Ancient Greek and Roman thought. There have been further significant developments in contract law during and since the Middle Ages and especially with the development of global trade .
Hadley & Anor v Baxendale & Ors [1854] EWHC J70 is a leading English contract law case. It sets the leading rule to determine consequential damages from a breach of contract: a breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should have foreseen.
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 ...
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]
Raffles v Wichelhaus [1864] EWHC Exch J19, often called "The Peerless" case, is a leading case on mutual mistake in English contract law.The case established that where there is latent ambiguity as to an essential element of the contract, the Court will attempt to find a reasonable interpretation from the context of the agreement before it will void it.
Forsyth was not happy, however, and he brought an action for breach of contract claiming the cost of having a pool demolished and rebuilt (the cost of cure), a sum of £21,540. At first instance the judge rejected the claim for 'cost of cure' damages on the ground that it was an unreasonable claim in the circumstances, but awarded Forsyth 'loss ...
Firstly, he examined the substance of the contract, and then determined whether the contract was founded on the assumption of the existence of a particular state of affairs. He then determined that given the affidavits of the parties, Krell had granted Henry a licence to use the rooms for a particular purpose: watching the coronation.
Such was British Road Services Ltd. v. Arthur V. Crutchley & Co. Ltd. [1968] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 271, 281–282, per Lord Pearson; and the illustration given by Professor Guest in Anson's Law of Contract, 24th ed., pp. 37, 38 when he says that "the terms of the contract consist of the terms of the offer subject to the modifications contained in the ...