Search results
There are three main elements: (1) the making of a representation or assurance to the claimant relating to identified property; (2) reliance on it by the claimant; and (3) detriment to the claimant in consequence of his reasonable reliance. See paragraph [29] in Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18; [2009] 1 WLR 776.
¶ 1 Held: Where defendants failed to provide a sufficient record of the proceedings at trial, including the petition for attorney fees at issue and a transcript of the relevant hearing, this court must presume that the circuit court correctly ordered defendants to pay plaintiff’s attorney fees.
Oct 13, 2014 · The group of companies theory has no place in English law. So held Langley J in the recent case Peterson Farms Inc. v. C & M Farming Ltd. 1 English law recognizes the autonomous nature of the arbitration agreement.
- Sarita Patil Woolhouse
- 2004
Key Point. ‘Broad’ policy concepts such as ‘openness’ in the present case are not apt for strict judicial oversight, but ‘specific’ policy concepts and their interpretations are a matter for the courts. Facts.
- Brief Fact Summary.
- Synopsis of Rule of Law.
- Facts.
- Issue.
- Held.
- Discussion.
International Casings Group, Inc. sued Premium Standard Farms, Inc. to enforce a contract that was never reduced to writing or signed by either party.
A meeting of the minds regarding the terms of an agreement and the parties actions is enough to form a contract without a writing signed by the parties.
International Casings Group, Inc. (ICG) sued Premium Standard Farms, Inc. (PSF) to enforce a contract that was never reduced to a writing signed by either party but the parties previously performed pursuant to the agreement.The agreement was for PSF to sell hog casings to ICG’s various facilities. When PSF informed ICG that they seek to terminate t...
Whether a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of an agreement and the parties actions is enough to form a contract without a writing signed by the parties?
Yes. ICG’s motion for a preliminary injunction is granted. A meeting of the minds existed because both ICG and PSF reached an agreement and performed in accordance with the agreement terms. Mutual assent to form a contract are not barred from performance simply because a writing does not exist.
PSF argues that no contract exists because there wasn’t a meeting of the minds with regards to price. However, performance of the contract began after the companies reached an agreement regarding the terms of the contract. When both parties were performing the contract, PSF did not express any displeasure with regards to the contract price.
20. Rix J's judgment in Gulf Azov has found approval with David Steel J in Astra SA Insurance v Sphere Drake Insurance [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 550; with Colman J in Aoot Kalmneft v Glencore International AG [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 128; with Gross J in Electrosteel Castings v Scan-Trans Shipping [2002] EWHC 1993 (Comm); with Tomlinson J in Peterson …."
R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) (Respondents) v North Yorkshire County Council (Appellant) Judgment date. 05 Feb 2020. Neutral citation number [2020] UKSC 3. Case ID. UKSC 2018/0077. Justices. Lady Hale, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales. Judgment details. Judgment (PDF) Press summary ...
