Yahoo Web Search

Search results

  1. 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
  2. Aug 14, 2008 · The main case for this point is that of British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co [1984] 1 ALL ER 504 in which a major term (excluding liability for late delivery of a product) was never agreed yet the work itself was completed.

  3. William Lusty was a salvage merchant who rescued driftwood that had fallen into the London canals from barges, and then turned them into packing crates. He contacted Marshall B. Lloyd and expressed an interest in obtaining the patent in order to manufacture Lloyd Loom furniture in the UK.

  4. Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases, Volume 26, Issue 28, 24 November 1909, Pages 765–775, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/26.28.765. Published: 24 November 1909. PDF.

  5. Products. toiletries. H. Bronnley & Co. (or Bronnley) is a British soap and toiletries producer established in 1884 in London. The company moved to Brackley, Northamptonshire before 1961 and was located in the old Chesham and Brackley Brewery premises, with their box making department located across the road in an old manor house.

  6. Read Clancy v. Bromley Tea Co., Case No. CV12-03003-EMC, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

  7. People also ask

  8. In the year 1820 William Bromley, who had for many years previously carried on business as an attorney and solicitor at Gray's Inn, took his brother, the Defendant Joseph Walter Bromley, into partnership with him, the terms of the partnership being that the latter should advance £1000, which was to be repaid to him at the expiration of five ...

  1. People also search for