Introduction The plaintiff, Scott, who was a Custom House officer of twenty-six years standing. On 19 January 1864, the plaintiff was at the defendants’ docks and had performed his duty at the East Quay as superintendent of the weighing of goods. Mr. Lilley, his superior officer, directed the plaintiff to go from the East Quay to Spirit Quay, which he proceeded to do, leaving to pass the defendants’ warehouses in his way. Unable to find Lilley, the plaintiff inquired of a workman where he was, and was informed that he was in a warehouse. In passing from the doorway of one warehouse to the other, the plaintiff fell to the ground as six bags of sugar tumbled upon him while they were being lowered to the ground from the upper part of the warehouse.
What he always does is that he gave orders to third party in order for him to make commission. The claimant was not happy and wanted to prevent the defendant from dealing with certain investments purchased with the money received on the basis that the defendant was a constructive trust. The court held that Stubbs to pay the profits which he got to the plaintiff. It was more likely to be a debtor and creditor rather than a trustee and a beneficiary. Contrasting the case of A-G Hong Kong v Reid (1994) 1 AC 324, (1994) 1 All ER 1,PC which resolved the issue of Lister & co v Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch D 1,59 LjCh 570,38 wr 548, in Reid the Privy Council held that there was bribe under the trust property from outside.
Condition and warranties are very different in contract. Condition is a term of the contract which is a necessary issue, in the sense that any breach will allow the other party to abrogation. Warranties is less important terms which are secondary to the main purpose of the contract (Topic 2: Contract Law, p37-38 ). The difference between these is of fundamental importance in assessing whether a failure to perform them represents a breach of contract. The innocent party’s rights in response to a breach of a term depend on how serious or fundamental the actual breach is.
INTRODUCTION: Mental, moral, or physical domination that deprives a person of independent judgment and substitutes another person’s objectives in place of his or her own .Exercise of undue influence is characterized often by excessive insistence, superiority of physical power, mind,or will, or pressure applied due to authority, position, or relationship in relation to the strength of the person submitting to it. Consent obtained for a contract, relationship, or transaction is voidable if it can be shown that an unfair advantage has been taken of an involved party. DEFINITION: Undue Influence is defined as,- (1) A contract is said to be induced by “undue influence” where the relations subsisting between the
First, the requirement it has to show that one of the parties such as an offender is in a situation to dominate the willpower of the other. The first component is “domination”. Secondly, the dominating litigant use their position to obtain an unfair benefit over the other party. For example, it must be show the contract that the party enter into with appears, either on the face of it or the evidence offered, to be excessive. Under English Law, the two elements “domination” and “a relationship between trust and confidence” are totally different from Malaysia Law.
Survey Operations 1. Illegal Appropriation of Land 2. Illegal Dumping of Waste 3. Water Concerns Illegal appropriation of land The main concern of the villagers was that the Coca Cola franchisee owned bottling plant had built its factory partly on the part of the land where gram sabha (village assembly) is commonly held. The gram sabha is essentially the community, and more specifically, those persons within the community who are over 18 years of age who are eligible to vote in local village council elections.
If misrepresentation and non¬disclosure are now, to all intents and purposes, the same creature and an equitable creature, this automatic right to avoid the contract must become question- able. Will the judiciary be able to deny avoidance, even if materiality and inducement are proved, and insist instead that the innocent party settles for damages? 2.6 The test of materiality The concept of materiality is necessary in order to delimit the obligation to disclose. It has been suggested that such a limitation is not a "logically necessary requirement" to the duty of non- misrepresentation. Materiality is required in the Marine Insurance act, 1906 (UK) both in the context of disclosure and misrepresentation.
a) Termination of contract, rescue from insolvency and liquidation: - Termination of contract Termination of contract is considered to be lawful when a legitimate reason happens to end of the contract before performance has been completed. This contract call as the terminate contact is because the contract has become legally responsible under the law in the Malaysia and cannot be fulfil their stipulator duties. When this contract is failure to perform, then this contract will be result in breach of contract lawsuit or other legal liabilities. But, it also can be legally terminated before the contractual duties have been fulfilled. Factors vitiating the contract to become voidable i) Coercion Under Section 15 Contracts Act 1950, when a person is persuasive by another to do some action like using the actual or endangered physical violence, psychological pressure, threats, economic duress or the bringing of unfounded criminal proceeding against him.
In November 2004, labourers first started communicating discontent over poor and uncalled for treatment by their Indian directors at the Indian plant. HMSI worked with a strict and totalitarian administer on the assembling shop floor that brought about a rundown of requests by the worker populace, notwithstanding an endeavour to unionize. Administration, in intrigue with the legislature, endeavoured to square the formal unionization enrolment exertions, which prompted raising pressures in the middle of specialists and administration.
In the field of credit scoring, this means that it is not safe to assume, in the first instance, that p = 0. Alternatively, a better way can be sought in an early development phase used to judge the cost of incomplete observability. However, without referring to a certain set of data, it is not possible to quantify the efficiency loss (Poirier, 1980). As such, a careful way of doing it is through the application of the bivariate probit model in the first