The role of Equitable remedies come into play when legal remedies or monetary compensation cannot adequately resolve the wrongdoing. It is often kept as a requirement that only if legal damages are unavailable before a court can the court decide to issue equitable
Firstly, an imbalance of power may arise where one party is more powerful than the other; this could undermine the mutual nature of ADR. Secondly, a decision made by way of ADR is not one that is imposed upon the parties; consequentially, a court order may have to be obtained so as to enforce the agreement. Thirdly, some disputes are unsuitable for ADR, including: cases involving a point of law, some family disputes (eg. domestic violence), disputes requiring an urgent solution, those involving over one party and cases where the prospects of success are little or none . All of these cases are best suited for civil litigation.
Introduction This question requires an examination of the law of contract and the nature of the subject matter that was contracted between the parties. Only Antonia and Jonathan are legally bound by and entitled to enforce the contract (Coulls v Bagot’s ) and may sue or be sued under the contract. The rights and obligations of Antonia and Jonathan depend on whether the contract has been validly terminated. If the contract validly terminated, all future obligation will be terminated, but obligations arising prior to termination remains intact. If this is not so, then the contract continues and the parties will still be under obligation to complete the contract and it would be possible for parties to sue for damages for non-performance.
Note: - The primary difference between Development Pending and On Hold is development pending are in the hands of the developers, however, development on hold is out of the hand of developers but rather and issue of the environment. 6. Projects are considered to be Unclarified if they are still under evaluation (e.g., a recent discovery) or require significant further appraisal to clarify the potential for development. 7. Where a technically viable project has been assessed as being of insufficient potential to warrant any further appraisal activities or any direct efforts to remove commercial contingencies, it should be classified as Development not Viable.
The classic definition of consideration was adopted by Lush J in the case of Currie v. Misa where he stated: ‘’A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.’’ Consideration is an essential part of English contract law and it is used to define whether a contract is legally enforceable. Both parties must provide something in exchange of the other’s promise. If a contract is made by deed there is no need of consideration because there is a document containing promises. Furthermore, it must be noted the difference between unilateral and
Firstly, the requirement of privies is narrow. Privies refers to people has relation in blood, title or interest. However “interest” is hardly to define. The law only uses the narrow sense on interest that the defendant should not be harassed twice. It excluded the other possibilities of “interested parties” and makes the rule
he institution chosen by the parties is experienced in the particular subject matter of the dispute. An experienced institution normally has a checklist of potential arbitrators who are more competence in the particular field of dispute, from which the parties may choose their own arbitrator or let the institution to select one for them. Ad-hoc arbitration is commonly used when a dispute had arisen in between the contending parties regarding to any commercial transaction where the parties are unable to reach a mutually agreed settlement by negotiation, mediation or conciliation. If that is the case, arbitration process can be sought by the contracting parties. This arbitration procedure is agreed only to obtain justice for the part of the dispute which is unsettled.
The requirements for an actionable misrepresentation are that; the misrepresentation must be a statement of existing fact or past events, and not a statement of opinion; it must induce a person to enter into the contract; it must be material in that it relates to a matter which would influence a reasonable person’s decision whether to enter into the contract. (Misrepresentation Act, Cap 390) There are three types of misrepresentation: The first is innocent misrepresentation - when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true. The second is negligent misrepresentation - a representation made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth. The third is fraudulent misrepresentation - where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth. The affect of a finding of misrepresentation, regardless of whether it is innocent, negligent or fraudulent, is that the contract is voidable, and the innocent party may rescind the contract, which generally means terminating the contract and returning the parties to the position they were before the
INTRODUCTION The statement, which is a quote from McPhail v Doulton , is stating that for a trust to be valid the beneficiaries must be able to be identifiable, meaning there are persons with a beneficial interest in the trust. From the case of Re Endacott we know that beneficiaries must be certain or capable to be certain; with out this, the trust will fail. It is so crucial to identify the beneficiaries because the trustees must know to whom they owe an obligation, and so the courts can enforce the trust. Certainty has been said to be the “greatest problems of principle to chancery lawyers” The case of Knight v Knight is one of the most important cases in the area of trust law. It provided the three certainties; a checklist to see if
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.