Be Terminated By Agreement

in Sin categoría by

1. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd -v- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26. 2. The amount of damage obviously depends on a number of factors. See Hadley -v- Baxendale [1854] 9 Exch 341. 3. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd -v- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26, p.70.

4. For example, in Dominion Corporate Trustees Ltd -v- Debenhams Properties Ltd [2010] EWHC 1193 (Ch), the Court interpreted an apparent condition as an intermediate period within which the action for annulment for a minor infringement appeared too drastic. 5. In Union Eagle Ltd -v- Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] UKPC 5, a 10-minute delay in the payment of the purchase price resulted in the termination of a contract for the purchase of a dwelling and the end of the discount paid. 6. United Scientific Holdings Ltd -v- Burnley BC [1974] AC 904, 943-944. 7. Lombard North Central plc -v- Butterworth [1987] QB 527 CA. 8.

British and Commonwealth Holdings plc -v- Quadrex Holdings Inc [1989] 3 WLR 723. 9. The communication does not make the timetable a technical condition, but proves the date on which it would be reasonable to require the obligation to perform. Failure to perform until that date can then be considered an intention not to do so. See United Scientific Holdings Ltd- -v Burnley BC [1974] AC 904. 10. Universal Cargo Carriers Corp. -v- Citati (No.1) [1957] 2 QB 401, at 436. 11. White and Carter (Councils) Ltd -v- McGregor [1962] AC 413.

12. Matthews -v- Smallwood [1910] 1 ch 777 to 786. 13. Peyman -v- Lanjani et al. [1985] Ch 457; Kendall -v- Hamilton (1878-79) 4 App. Case. 504. 14. However, the nature of the contract may determine the duration granted to the innocent party. For example, if time is of the essence or if the contract was concluded in a volatile market, the allowed period should be relatively short. Siehe Force India Formula One Team Ltd -v- Etihad Airways PJSC [2010] EWCA Civ 1051, [2010] All ER (D) 41 (Oct) à 122. 15.

Siehe Stocznia Gdanska SA -v- Latvian Shipping Co (Répudiation) [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 768. 16. Hain Steamship Co Ltd -v- Tate & Lyle [1936] 2 Alle ER 597; Bentsen -v- Taylor Sons & Co [1893] 2 QB 274. . . .

Si quieres un post patrocinado en mis webs, un publireportaje, un banner o cualquier otra presencia publcitaria, puedes escribirme con tu propuesta a