Page 1 All England Law Reports/1990/Volume 1 /Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd - [1990] 1 All ER 512 [1990] 1 All ER 512 Williams v Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd COURT OF APPEAL‚ CIVIL DIVISION PURCHAS‚ GLIDEWELL AND RUSSELL LJJ 2‚ 3‚ 23 NOVEMBER 1989 Contract - Consideration - Performance of contractual duty - Performance of existing contractual duty - Agreement to pay additional money to ensure performance of existing contractual duty - Whether sufficient consideration
Premium Contract
Facts: The negligent act of Ruth in the fact that she did not properly park her car caused a series of accidents that resulted in knocked down power lines‚ grass fires‚ a gas station explosion‚ and an injured motorist. These accidents originated with Ruth’s in-action to not properly observe the securing of her vehicle which resulted in the damages suffered by the plaintiff Jim. Issue: The defendant Ruth owed a duty of care by her actions to protect the plaintiff Jim from harm. In the fact that she
Premium Tort Law Tort law
Republic of Austria v. Altmann 124 S.Ct. 2240 FACTS: In 1998 it evidence was discovered that certain works in the Austrian Gallery archives in Vienna‚ Austria had not been obtained from their rightful owners. These works were believed to have been seized by the Nazis or expropriated by the Austrian Republic after World War II. Prior to the Nazi invasion of Austria in 1938‚ the paintings had hung in the Vienna home of Maria Altmann’s uncle‚ Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer. Mrs. Altmann claims ownership
Premium Austria Germany House of Habsburg
that the gross negligence noted in Ultramares case has been eliminated. Ultramares Corp. v Touche is the leading case regarding the application of privity. Some people argued that it should be abandoned because it is outdated (Tavella‚ 2012). But New York‚ Florida and Pennsylvania still outlined the Ultramares rule while some states have adopted different approaches even today. The case of Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Anderson & Co. was among of the cases that reaffirmed the Ultramares rule in the
Premium Securities Act of 1933 Accountant Profession
1. In the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser a lot happened. In my understanding there was a school event in which students gave speeches. The one student gave a speech with language unaccepted in the school‚ and got suspended‚ and was not allowed to be voted in for the election. The Father got angry and believed that his sons amendment rights were being violated. He felt like his sons first amendment right of freedom of speech was being withheld from him‚ along with his fourteenth amendment
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
Facts: In 1965 a group of individuals in Des Moines held a meeting to protest the Vietnam War. The group decided to fast and wear armbands as a sign of there disapproval. The principals of the Des Moines schools heard of the armband protest and adopted a policy banning any student from wearing the armbands at school. Any student caught wearing the armband at school would be asked to remove it‚ and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. John Tinker and several
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)FactsMarbury was commissioned to serve as a judge by former president John Adam. The former Secretary of State and the present Chief Justice John Marshall failed to deliver the commission before President Thomas Jefferson started his term. The current Secretary of State‚ James Madison‚ under Jeffersons orders‚ did not deliver the commission. Marbury applied for a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver said commission. HoldingMarburys application
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Marbury v. Madison United States Constitution
|[pic] |School of Creative Industries Art Design |[pic] | | |Media & Performing Arts | | |BTEC Extended |Assignment Title: Script 1 | |Diploma
Premium Writing Proposal Proposals
Brief Kraft‚ Inc. v. Federal Trade Commissio Plaintiff/Appellant: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Defendant/Appellee: Kraft Inc. History: Federal Trade Commission instituted a deceptive advertising proceeding against Kraft Inc. Kraft was instructed to terminate certain ads due to false advertising. Facts: In March 1987‚ Kraft added a subscript on the television commercial and as a footnote in the print media version‚ the disclosure that “one ¾ ounces slice has 70% of the calcium of five ounces
Premium Marketing Kraft Foods United States
Leng Xiong Business Law Anderson September 11‚ 2013 Case Analysis #1 Austin V. Berryman Citation: Austin V. Berryman United States Supreme Court of Appeal‚ Fourth Circuit‚ 1989. Facts: Barbra Austin is challenging the Virginia Employment Commission for unemployment compensation benefits‚ which she chose to quit her job out of religious beliefs to fallow her spouse. Issue: She is claimed to be denied of her unemployment compensation benefits because she quilted due to her religious belief
Premium Faith United States Religion