Ad
related to: articles on contract law cases florida
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning contract law and arbitration.The case arose from a class action filed in Florida against a payday lender alleging the loan agreements the plaintiffs had signed were unenforceable because they essentially charged a higher interest rate than that permitted under Florida law.
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116, (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff'd 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000), more widely known as the Pepsi Points case, is an American contract law case regarding offer and acceptance. The case was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1999; its judgment was written by Kimba Wood.
The Florida Constitution defines how the statutes must be passed into law, and defines the limits of authority and basic law that the Florida Statutes must be complied with. Laws are approved by the Florida Legislature and signed into law by the Governor of Florida. Certain types of laws are prohibited by the state constitution.
The promise must be real and unconditional. This doctrine rarely invalidates contracts; it is a fundamental doctrine in contract law that courts should try to enforce contracts whenever possible. Accordingly, courts will often read implied-in-fact or implied-in-law terms into the contract, placing duties on the promisor.
English contract law; Undue influence in English law; Iniquitous pressure in English law; Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] QB 326; Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 350 F.2d 445 (United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1965)
This category includes cases regarding United States contract law. Subcategories. This category has the following 3 subcategories, out of 3 total. C.
Lewison LJ held that it was wrong to suggest that a contractual estoppel (where parties are bound to accept something even if they knew it to be untrue) was an answer to a claim under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 section 3, or that a non-reliance clause was immune from scrutiny (disapproving two High Court cases, Thornbridge [2015] EWHC 3430 (QB) and Sears [2016] EWHC 433 (Ch)).
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), is a legal dispute that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. [1] [2] On April 27, 2011, the Court ruled, by a 5–4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, such as the law previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of ...
Ad
related to: articles on contract law cases florida