Search results
Bromley v Williams. Nominate Series English Reports Cited authorities 16 Cited in 7 Precedent Map Related. Vincent. Jurisdiction: England & Wales: Judgment Date: 12 ...
- High Court of Chancery
- 12 February 1863
- 12 February 1863
- England & Wales
Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Jn & Co Lt. d. 18, he cited a number of cases in support of his proposition. He emphasised that equity’s role is as a supplement, rather than as a rival, to the common law, and he said that it would therefore be “most odd for equity to impose on the parties a reformed contract in cases of mistake
- 293KB
- 27
Aug 8, 2019 · According to Contract Act 1950, an agency’s authority may arise in a five ways, by expressing appointment by the principal, implied appointment made by the principal, ratification by the principal, by necessity (operation of law in certain circumstances) and by doctrine of estoppels or holding out.
In the year 1829, having been informed by William Bromley that he had an opportunity of investing a sum of £4500 as mortgage of an estate of a Mr. Seabrook, the Plaintiffs, who resided at Bath, drew a cheque for that amount on the executors' account at the Bank of England, crossed with the names of Messrs. Rogers, Twogood, & Co., and made ...
- High Court of Chancery
- 03 July 1847
- 03 July 1847
- England & Wales
- I. Introduction
- II. Illegality as A Defence
- III. Illegality as Cause of Action
- IV. Conclusion
- Footnotes
When English unjust enrichment lawyers talk of “illegality”, they generally do so in the context of the unravelling of partly-performed illegal contracts. Two parties enter into an illegal contract. What generally happens is that one pays for a service to be performed but fails to receive the agreed exchange. Can that party recover the value he has...
The defence of illegality is not unique to claims for restitution of unjust enrichments. We have already seen that it will bar claims in respect of the non-performance of contractual promises. It can also bar claims for compensatory damages for torts,8and, more controversially, for the enforcement of property rights not generated by unjust enrichme...
Nowhere in any other branch of English private law does illegality per se provide a plaintiff with a cause of action that he would not otherwise have. Although illegality operates in contract and tort to bar what would otherwise be valid claims, it never creates a cause of action in itself. And nor does illegality ever give rise to property rights,...
While there is no doubt that in English law illegality can operate as a defence to a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, the argument which has been made is that there is no support in the case-law for the proposition that illegality can found a claim in unjust enrichment. Most of the cases normally cited in favour of illegality as a cause ...
1 For a general account of illegality in the context of contractual undertakings, see Sir Guenter Treitel, The Law of Contract(10th ed, London, 1999), pp 392-452. 2 The worst offender in this regard is probably the decision of the Privy Council in Kiriri Cotton Ltd v Dewani[1960] AC 192. 3 Peter Birks, An Introduction to the Law of Restitution(Oxfo...
The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee the survival of today's information for tomorrow and bring history to life for everyone.
People also ask
Should a plaintiff be in pari delicto in Smith v Bromley?
What is the ground of claim in Smith v Bromley?
What was the impact of Smith v Bromley?
Was Smith v Bromley a protected class?
Jan 8, 2019 · In Mansfield Hosiery Mills Ltd v Bromley [1977], an employee successfully applied for a job as a boiler service fitter, where the job advertisement stated that training would be provided. He initially performed well and was promoted to supervisor, but then he was given no training in his supervisory duties.
