Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
His judgment in Carter v Boehm was an application of his general principle to the making of a contract of insurance. It was based upon the inequality of information as between the proposer and the underwriter and the character of insurance as a contract upon a "speculation". He equated non-disclosure to fraud. He said at p 1909:
The Moorcock 14 P.D. 64 (1889): the concept of implied terms in contract law. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256: establishing the test for formation of a contract. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v Selfridge and Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 847: confirming privity of contract: only a party to a contract can be sued on it. (This principle was ...
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101083, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (1993), alternatively titled Minors Oposa v.Factoran or Minors Oposa, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines recognizing the doctrine of intergenerational responsibility on the environment in the Philippine legal system.
For such a contract to be set aside for unfairness, the second party had to be active in obtaining an unfair contract. In this case the Privy Council held that Mr. Harts conduct was "beyond reproach", emphasising that most of the sale terms and conditions were proposed by the trust's own solicitor, which Mr Hart merely accepted.
This page lists legal decisions of the House of Lords. Until 30 September 2009, the House of Lords was the highest appellate court for the United Kingdom. Cases were determined not by the House of Lords itself, but by its Judicial Committee, consisting of up to nine legally qualified peers, generally referred to as "Law Lords".
Judicial precedents of the Philippine Supreme Court were accepted as binding, a practice more attuned to common law jurisdictions. Eventually, the Philippine legal system emerged in such a way that while the practice of codification remained popular, the courts were not barred from invoking principles developed under the common law, [1] or from ...
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175) was signed into law by President Benigno Aquino III on September 12, 2012, becoming effective on October 3. [6] Among the actions criminalized by this law is "cyberlibel". [6] Six days after the law commenced, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order to stop its implementation.
– The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America agree that all cases at law concerning the Government and people of the Philippines which, in accordance with section 7 (6) of the Independence Act of 1934, are pending before the Supreme Court of the United States of America at the date of the granting of the independence of ...