Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".
In Australia, punitive damages are not available for breach of contract, [5] but are possible for tort cases.. The law is less settled regarding equitable wrongs. In Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd, [6] the defendant employees knowingly breached contractual and fiduciary duties to their employer by diverting business to themselves and misusing its confidential information.
Property legislation in all states is grounded upon the Torrens principle of registration of title. [1] This posits that each state has a central register of all land in the state and that the register also shows the 'owner' of the land. This system was devised to reduce the amount of fraud relating to land due to the falsification of title deeds.
Real Property Act 1900 [8] Conveyancing Act 1919 [9] Victoria: Property Law Act 1958 [10] Sale of Land Act 1962 [11] Australian Capital Territory: Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 [12] Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act 2003 [13] Queensland: Property Law Act 1974 [14] Land Titles Act 1994 [15] Northern Territory: Law of Property Act [16 ...
Whether there is a distinct body of law in Australia known as the law of unjust enrichment is a highly controversial question. In Pavey & Mathews v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 the concept of unjust enrichment was expressly endorsed by the High Court of Australia. This was subsequently followed in numerous first instance and appellate decisions, as ...
An example is when a tortfeasor offers to sell a property to someone below market value knowing they were in the final stages of a sale with a third party pending the upcoming settlement date to formalize the sale writing. Such conduct is termed "tortious interference with a business expectancy". [2]
Uniqueness of the Property: The subject of the contract, especially in real estate transactions, must be unique to such an extent that monetary damages would not be a sufficient remedy. Irreparable Harm: The aggrieved party would suffer irreparable harm if specific performance were not granted, such as in cases where real property’s unique ...
Penal damages are liquidated damages which exceed reasonable compensatory damages, making them invalid under common law.While liquidated damage clauses set a pre-agreed value on the expected loss to one party if the other party were to breach the contract, penal damages go further and seek to penalise the breaching party beyond the reasonable losses from the breach. [1]