Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a city can pressure private employers to hire city residents, but the same exercise of power to bias private contractors against out-of-state residents may be called into account under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of ...
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".
Hyundai were shipbuilders who entered into a contract dated 10 April 1972 with North Ocean Shipping to build an oil tanker named the "Atlantic Baron". [1] The price for constructing the ship was payable in five instalments, and the builders had agreed to a reverse letter of credit, for repayment of installments in the event of default on the construction.
Discover the latest breaking news in the U.S. and around the world — politics, weather, entertainment, lifestyle, finance, sports and much more.
The defendant sought to rely on a clause in the contract that purported to limit their liability for breach of contract. In the Suisse Atlantique, [4] the House of Lords had previously declared that whether or not a fundamental breach extinguishes any protection of a limitation clause was a question of construction and not a question of law. [5]
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.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Instead, the court decided that no contract had been entered into, and only allowed the claimants to get restitutionary recovery on a quantum meruit basis for the value of the work done. The conclusion that no contract existed meant the defendants could not recover the damages for late performance as no terms had been agreed to that extent. [1] [2]