Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Copeland v Greenhalf [1952] Ch 488 is an English property law case establishing that excessive use of another's land cannot be granted by way of an easement. The defendant claimed that he held a prescriptive right to leave an unlimited number of cars on his neighbour's land, by way of such a right having existed for some fifty years previously.
Copeland's method was devised by Ramon Llull in his 1299 treatise Ars Electionis, which was discussed by Nicholas of Cusa in the fifteenth century. [2] However, it is frequently named after Arthur Herbert Copeland, who advocated it independently in a 1951 lecture. [3] A simple description of Copeland's method.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom dealt with the application of the Carltona doctrine in R v Adams [2020] UKSC 19. [5] In 1973, Gerry Adams , a politician in Northern Ireland, was detained without trial by an interim custody order made under Article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
Consideration must be an act, abstinence or forbearance or a returned promise. Consideration may be past, present or future. Past consideration is not consideration according to English law. However it is a consideration as per Indian law. Example of past consideration is, A renders some service to B at latter's desire.
The first is "benefit-detriment theory," in which a contract must be either to the benefit of the promisor or to the detriment of the promisee to constitute consideration (though detriment to the promisee is the essential and invariable test of the existence of a consideration rather than whether it can be constituted by benefit to the promisor ...
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!
Currie v Misa Lush J. referred to consideration as consisting of a detriment to the promisee or a benefit to the promisor: "... some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other." [9] Bolton v Madden Blackburn J, "The general rule is ...
The leading case is Stilk v Myrick (1809), [3] where a captain promised 8 crew the wages of two deserters provided the remainders completed the voyage. The shipowner refused to honour the agreement; the court deemed the eight crew were unable to enforce the deal as they had an existing obligation to sail the ship and meet "ordinary foreseeable emergencies".