Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In contract law, force majeure [1] [2] [3] (/ ˌ f ɔːr s m ə ˈ ʒ ɜːr / FORSS mə-ZHUR; French: [fɔʁs maʒœʁ]) is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot, crime, epidemic, or ...
EA Farnsworth, Contracts (2008) LL Fuller, MA Eisenberg and MP Gergen Basic Contract Law (9th edn 2013) CL Knapp, NM Crystal and HG Prince, Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (7th edn Aspen 2012) Books. OW Holmes, The Common Law (1890) chs 7-9; G Gilmore, The Death of Contract (1974) ISBN 0-8142-0676-X; Articles
United States Naval Institute v. Charter Communications stands for the proposition that the purpose of contract damages is to put the injured party in the position they would have been if there had been no breach. Punitive damages or damages to punish the breaching party are not recoverable under notions of contract law.
The parties have completely agreed to the terms, but have made the execution of some terms in the contract conditional on the creation of a formal contract; or; It is merely an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations, and the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.
In contract law, a forum selection clause (sometimes called a dispute resolution clause, choice of court clause, governing law clause, jurisdiction clause or an arbitration clause, depending on its form) in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any disputes relating to that contract will be resolved in a specific forum.
In 2012–2014, a New Jersey woman had to pay a lawyer to get out of an indemnity payment for injury at a storage unit. When someone slipped on ice in 2012 while going to a unit, Public Storage sued in court to make the woman who rented the unit pay for the injury. She tried to ignore the case and so state court ruled that she had to pay.
As a result of the incident and the subsequent investigation, the USFS canceled its contract with Carson Helicopters. In 2010, the NTSB found that there was “intentional wrong-doing” on the part of Carson Helicopters because the company over-stated its performance in the documents they provided to the USFS when bidding on $20 million in firefighting contracts for seven helicopters.
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.