Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38 is an English contract law case concerning interpretation of contracts.It creates a so-called "red ink" rule, that there is no limit to verbal rearrangement that the court may deploy to give a commercial sensible meaning when construing a contract in its bargaining context.
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".
Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 [1] is a leading English contract law case. It concerns the problem found among some large businesses, with each side attempting to get their preferred standard form agreements to be the basis for a contract.
In my view, the proper approach to this case is to take... all facts which throw light on the nature of the contract, or which can properly be held to be extrinsic evidence relevant to assist in its construction and then, as a matter of law, to construe the contract and to determine whether the ultimate situation... is or is not within the ...
The case summaries below are not official or authoritative. Unless otherwise noted, cases were heard by a panel of 5 judges. Cases involving Scots law are highlighted in orange. Cases involving Northern Irish law are highlighted in green. List of judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered in 2009
Construction, interpretation, context Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v West Bromwich Building Society [1997] UKHL 28 is a frequently-cited English contract law case which laid down that a contextual approach must be taken to the interpretation of contracts .
English unfair terms case law (12 P) Pages in category "English contract case law" ... Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd;
This doctrine of the common law came under heavy fire. It was ridiculed by Sir George Jessel in Couldery v Bartram. [1] It was said to be mistaken by Lord Blackburn in Foakes v Beer. [2] It was condemned by the Law Revision Committee (1945 Cmd 5449), paras. 20 and 21 . But a remedy has been found. The harshness of the common law has been relieved.