Substitutive performance as it used to be Traditionally, where there has been a breach of trust arising from a misapplication of the trust property, the breach had to be remedied by having the trust falsified. This subjected the trustee to a strict liability to restore the trust property in specie. Where this was not possible, the trustee had to compensate the beneficiary by paying him or her a monetary sum equivalent to the value of the trust property. This is known as substitutive performance. As stated by Elliott, ‘a beneficiary seeking substitutive performance relief in respect of a misapplication of trust property does not complain of a breach of trust causing loss’ .
Therefore, there is a strong case for a specific performance remedy. Yet, the issue here is that the book was purchased successfully by Ahmed, who may also value the book highly, and believed he has successfully created a legally binding contract himself. A remedy of specific performance would mean that the book would have to be taken off Ahmed so that Simon could purchase it. Since specific performance is an equitable remedy rather than a legal one, it must adhere to the equitable maxims. The maxim ‘equity follows the law’ suggests that the court would not allow a legal contract to be broken in order to enforce specific performance as a remedy.
However, the defendant terminated their agreements in December 2009 and the plaintiffs did not agree to the termination where they claimed that the termination was not same as the agreements which obtain undue influence. The second plaintiff withdrew his claim against the defendant as they have settled out of the
The special relationship needed to constitute constructive possession depends on the relationship between the individual and the owner of the property. Constructive possession depends upon a special relationship with the owner of the property in which the owner confers authority or responsibility to protect their property in another; not upon one's motives to recover the property. Sykes v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 571, 574 (1994).
The defendant was charged with two offenses of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of offenses against the person act and assaut. He denied the charges claiming that the sexual intercourse had been consensual. The judge ruled that it was open to the jury to convict the defendant and that whether or not the complainant had known of the defendant condition any consent between them was irrelevant and provided no defence. The defendant chose not to give evidence and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to sexual intercourse was not left to the jury. The defendant appeal and succeeded and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to the risk of the sexual transmitted infection and to whether they knew the defendant HIV condition.
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.
Property will pass and obligations will arise unless or until the contract is avoided. However, the right to rescission may be lost. Unfortunately, there is no general doctrine of mistake - the rules are contained in different groups of cases. This is also an
In mediation the parties cannot be compelled to disclose information that they prefer to keep confidential. It is considered to be non-coercive, in that the mediator does not decide for the parties, but rather encourages them to agree to a settlement.
When one party has not performed his promise in accordance with the terms of the contract, a breach of contract occurs. The very intention behind filing a lawsuit for a breach of contract is to seek the appropriate remedy for the grievances incurred through the breach of that contract . In Black’s law dictionary, it is defined that a remedy is “the means by which a right is enforced or the violation of a right is prevented, redressed, or compensated”. The word “remedy” in a legal context has somewhat the same meaning as in a medical context,ie, to cure. In a legal perspective, a remedy is something that cures the violation of a legal right.