Search Results

Krell v Henry [1903] 2 KB 740 Full case judgment: Search your preferred case law database to access the full judgment for this case, e.g ICLR, Westlaw, LexisNexis. Other p

803 Full case judgment: The reported judgment, cited as [1983] 2 AC 803, is available from the ICLR. Alternatively, you can view the full judgment for this case, cited as [1982]

Full case judgment: The reported judgement, cited as (1840) 49 ER 132, is available from LexisNexis. Alternately, you can view the full judgment for this case, cited as [1840]

‘important’ element in the unconscionable bargain jurisdiction, but that it was not ‘essential in all cases that the party at a disadvantage should suffer loss or detriment by the bargain’

Man) Ltd v Cable & Wireless plc (2005). In this case, the Court of Appeal held that an agreement by the parties, to agree an essential term in the future, was incomplete and unenforceable

to an essential quality of the subject matter Mistake as to an essential quality of the subject matter 271 Diagram 6F Mistakes as to quality: an overview of some cases 272

terms which they regarded or the law requires as essential for the formulation of legally binding relations. However, some cases have suggested that a party’s actual intentions

lacks some essential quality which the parties thought it possessed, can it be argued that the object of the contract is impossible to achieve? 12.39 The leading case of Bell

coincided in their respective terms. 27 However, these different cases are closely related. It follows from the essential nature of a contract that if there is no agreement between the

the premises was clearly essential for the performance of the contract and their destruction was rightly held to be a frustrating event. 19.24 Cases can occur where the subject

the particular case. The principle applies to every case where influence is acquired and abused, where confidence is reposed and betrayed. 126 It is not confined to cases where trust

appear that almost all torts that have dishonesty as an essential element also constitute crimes. 15 In the Apotex case: The claim by Apotex was for damages under a cross-undertaking

suggestions that where the parties are under an ‘essential mistake’, the contract must automatically be void. 13.23 In the case in question, Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd (1932),

recognition of the principle of promissory estoppel in cases since High Trees 171 has led to a more precise definition of its essential elements. (i) A clear promise The promise

leading case of Bell v Lever Bros , Lord Atkin approved the following proposition which had been formulated by Sir John Simon for the assistance of the House of Lords in that case: 1

the parties. In other cases, a contract is concluded and the stipulation for a credit is a condition which is an essential term of the contract. In those cases the provision of the credit

favour of the defendant. The case is somewhat unsatisfactory and difficult because there were unresolved questions of fact, so it is necessary to consider the case on three hypotheses.

specifically enforceable and thus creates equitable rights, although in the case of breach of an essential condition as to time relief by way of specific performance is less likely to