The well-known case of Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd. v. River Douglas Catchment Area [1949] 2K.B. 500 is helpful. In that case‚ the facts were as follows:- In 1938‚ the defendants entered into a covenant with eleven landowners who owned land along a certain stream. On a landowner’s payment of a part of the cost‚ the defendants would improve the banks on the stream and maintain the banks in future. Two years later‚ in 1940‚ one landowner sold her land to Smith who‚ in 1944‚ leased the land to Snipes
Premium Common law Real property law Property
be 2+ pages long) First‚ we all know that physical and mental examinations are often used in personal injury cases. In some cases the physical or mental condition of a party can be very important in establishing the personal liability of the defendant or in determining the extent of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. I will later provide you an example of a small fact pattern‚ based on the information that was provided in our textbook‚ but let me first start by giving you some details‚ your
Premium Injury Plaintiff Defendant
Advocate P-492/1999 Counsel for the petitioner IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE‚ SR. DIVISION‚ CHANDIGARH CIVIL SUIT NO._____ OF 2010 IN RE:- ASHOK BHARDWAJ …Plaintiff VERSUS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS …Defendant Affidavit of Ashok Bhardwaj S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Dass‚ R/o H.No. 601‚ VPO Hallo Majra‚ U.T. Chandigarh. I‚ the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That the deponent has
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Injunction
Donnelly v. Rees Donnelly v. Rees 141 Cal. 56‚ Cal. 1903 Facts Action can be taken from the sole heir of a deceased person in order to set aside a deed acquired from the deceased from the defendants using fraudulent means. The deceased was known to be a habitual alcoholic for five years prior to the execution of the deed. This pattern of alcoholic behavior can to an extent seriously impair the mind. The deceased was also intoxicated at the time as to render him unfit to be able to transact business
Premium Legal terms Contract law Plaintiff
documentary were well conducted. The interviews were taken of both blacks and whites‚ as the plaintiff in the court case was black and the defendants were white. Taking two different perspectives on the issue showed the facts and how each side felt and reacted to the crime. These interviews were filmed in many different places‚ including the Byrd family house (defendant)‚ and the house of one of the suspect’s family‚ outside of the courthouse where the trial would be held‚ and various other locations around
Premium White people Black people Plaintiff
de Castro‚ and defendants‚ John Vastola and Joan Vastola‚ entered into a contract for the sale of 136 East Cliff St.‚ Somerville. The final date was scheduled for June 15‚ 2004. On June 14‚ 2004‚ defendant’s real estate attorney wrote plaintiff’s attorney stating that defendants had elected not to proceed to convey title. Plaintiff’s contended that the difference in the financing costs they experience because of the delay should be presented as damages because the breach by defendants will result in
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Complaint
Plaintiff Johnny Ong tried to acquire from the defendants a "townhome" described as Unit No. 4 of Atrium Townhomes in Cebu City. As reflected in a Contract to Sell‚ the selling price of the unit was P3‚400‚000.00 pesos‚ for a lot area of eighty-eight (88) square meters with a three-storey building. Out of the purchase price‚ plaintiff was able to pay the amount of P1‚060‚000.00. Prior to the full payment of this amount‚ plaintiff claims that defendants Andre Almocera and First Builders fraudulently
Premium Legal terms Contract Defendant
control of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 03 is a contractor and engaged in the business of carrying the work of heavy water pipe line by obtaining contracts from defendant no. 02. The said work was carried on through the company K.K. Reddy and its registered office
Premium Credit card Money Cheque
point of contention. The defendants (Cipla) argued that Erlotinib is not a new drug but at the best a pre-1995 variant of an older drug‚ thus cannot be patented according to Section 3(d) unless and otherwise proved to have an increase in efficacy. The plaintiffs did not contribute considerable arguments about the increase in efficacy‚ thus this contention was ruled out due to the lack of merit. “Balance of convenience” deals with the question‚ “Who (plaintiff or the defendant) will be subject to higher
Premium Prima facie Legal burden of proof Judgment
505 shares of preferred stock from the defendant‚ Gingerich‚ a small corporation named Maplecrest Turkey farms. The price of each stock was $52.50 per share which came to a grand total of $236‚512.50. Protein Blenders‚ Inc. has failed and refused to accept the stock or to pay the agreed amount. Protein Blenders‚ Inc. decided not to purchase the stock from Gingerich because the stock is of unknown and unknown easily ascertainable value. The defendants moved to transfer law‚ and their motion
Premium Appeal Court Meaning of life