This statement is what led Mr Jones to enter the Fraudulent Misrepresentation contract, which occurs when a party makes a misrepresentation with intent to trick other party while knowing that it is untrue, deliberately making a false statement. Hence, Mr Jones can appeal at the Court Of Appeal and even claim that he had signed the contract under “fraudulent misrepresentation” in order to escape from the contract. “When a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absence of fraud, or - misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not.‟ Due to the presence of misrepresentation, Mr Smith could not rely on the exemption clause stating he bears no responsibilities to the income generated as he gave a statement which states that the annual income is $900,000 which is not true. Mr Jones would be able to file a Court Of Appeal against him/the contract for what he
Nobody would suggest in ordinary circumstances that those agreements result in what we know as a contract, and one of the most usual forms of agreement which does not constitute a contract appears to me to be the arrangements which are made between husband and wife ". He later added that “to my mind those agreements, or many of them, do not result in contracts at all, and they do not result in contracts even though there may be what as between other parties would constitute
For instance, in jurisdictions other than Jordan, the corporate veil was pierced where it was demonstrated that the parent company was a guarantor for its subsidiary or if the later acted as the agent of the former. Besides, where a parent company effectively makes the decisions issued in the name of its subsidiary, the former may well be found liable for the actions of the latter. Fraudulent transfer of the assets of one company to another affiliated company is another good justification for treating the relevant entities as one. The Supreme Court of Jordan has tackled the issue of piercing the corporate veil in a case involving a holding company and its subsidiary. In broad terms, the Court held that a holding company is generally jointly with its subsidiary for the actions of the latter, at least, where the subsidiary is wholly-owned by the holding company.
The third arbitrator replied that, in order to proceed in that period, the parties should consider the fees which were likely to be incurred, including a non-refundable commitment fee. The plaintiffs ' solicitors submitted a revised proposal which the arbitrators found satisfactory. However, they asked for an assurance that the defendants ' solicitors had no objection to make with regards to the payments proposed. The defendants ' solicitors argued that the two arbitrators had no entitlement to demand advance fees. Therefore, they sought an order removing those arbitrators on the ground of misconduct on the account of their making and persisting in certain requirements in respect of fees to which they were not entitled.
Had the defendant started his business while still employed and obtained customer information, then he would be liable as it was held in the case of Wessex Dairies v Smith (1935) 2 KB 80 where an employee was held liable for soliciting his masters customers to transfer their custom to himself, even though the transfer was to take effect only after he terminated his services , but in this case Rembrandt Chenayi Jangano is not in breach of the duty as the soliciting of customers only occurred after the termination of his services. The plaintiff company was unable to establish that the defendant breached his duty of fidelity during his employment by diverting business for his own
For instance, the contract exists once the offeree accepted the offer by replying the telex communication. In contrary, an agreement without communication is not enforceable. In this case, Felthouse (plaintiff) wished to buy a horse from his nephew and the offered stated the horse is belonging to him if no reply as an open offer. But then the auctioneer sold the horse negligently and Felthouse sued the auctioneer but failed because silence could not constitute to an acceptance. Despite this, silence is not sufficient to create as an acceptance to the offer, but communication of acceptance is not always essential where Machon Paull (defendant) did not sign the building contract which is offered by the Empirenall (plaintiff) who was a property developer but it constituted to acceptance since the defendant had received the benefit from the plaintiff although they just silent (WikiLaw
When a company acquires another company, all its assets and liabilities also go along. Since, there was a contract between Vishwakarma and Nak Chuy, there was now a contract between Nak Chuy and Iyer Associates and the liability to pay Nak Chuy was also transferred to Iyer Associates. Section 232 (1)(b) of the Indian Companies Act 2013 states- "under the scheme, the whole or any part of the undertaking, property or liabilities of any company (hereinafter referred to as the transferor company) is required to be transferred to another company (hereinafter referred to as the transferee company), or is proposed to be divided among and transferred to two or more companies." Taking into account the above mentioned section and precedent, it can be concluded that Iyer Associates has to pay Nak Chuy after acquiring Vishwakarma Hydraulics. b) Acceptance of goods by Iyer
The courts can look at evidence of intention by one or other of the parties that the statement should be part of the contract. For example if there is a written contract in accepting the offer of employment, employer is obliged to comply with the obligation the policy imposed on it. (Riverwood International Australia Pty Ltd v McCormick -  FCA 889 )The nature of terms of contract may be either express or implied. Express term can be parties agreeable to either verbal or written form and are that 's which the parties to employment relationship have actually discussed on which they have agreed. (Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Ltd v Nikolich  FCAFC 120).