Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Case of promissory estoppel
Promissory estoppel bargain
Promissory estoppel bargain
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the case Richardson vs. J. C. Flood company the appellate court ruled in favor of J. C Flood Company for the work that was done on Richardson’s property. The reason that the case turned out in J. C. Flood Company’s favor was due to the fact that Richardson would frequently check in on the progress of the work, but made no objection or attempt to stop the extra work from being don’t, until the entire job was finished when the appellant refused to pay any part of the bill submitted. The rule that is being implied on why J. C. Flood Company should receive the compensation for the work done could be that although the contract was never written this is a promissory estoppel which is a noncontractual promise. It was implied and that Richardson …show more content…
C. Flood Company was because Richardson had not tried to stop the work from being done at any point throughout the process. By not stopping the work from being done the court agreed that J. C Flood Company had consent from Richardson to do the work that was necessary. The bill that was presented to Richardson was also a reasonable about for the work that was being done and the job was done to the best it could have been. In conclusion the reason that Richardson was billed for the work being done was because she did not make any attempt to stop it and that gave the impression that J. C. Flood company had the consent of Richardson to do the work to the waterpipe. The conclusion that could apply for Richardson’s refusal to pay the bill could be that she never agreed to the work for the water pipe to be replaced, she was never informed that the water pipe needed to be replaced. She could have also argued that the work was not necessary at the time, or the bill was not a reasonable price and was too high for the work that was …show more content…
Because there was no contract written for the work of the waterpipe replacement, then Richardson should not be held accountable for the payment of the work that wasn’t necessary. Richardson’s refusal to pay for the work would be acceptable because the bill that she received was higher than it should have been after all the work had been completed. The bill included the work for the waterpipe as well which should not have been
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
Jones was party to the contract and mortgage together with Mrs Jones as surety for her husband, even though Mrs Jones was the actual owner of the property. This produced a legal consequence as it affected the appellants with a conduct on the part of the husband in relation to his wife which raised equities in her favour against the indication of a mortgage. The husband exercised undue influence on Mrs Jones to procure her signature to the mortgage which consisted of no consideration. The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant upon a contract to pay interest and principal contained in the mortgage over the property at Walkerville owned by Mrs Jones. It was understood that Mrs Jones executed the mortgage without understanding the effect of the contract and presumed various false misrepresentations. She argued that the mortgage which she s...
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Since the Court found that Jacob & Youngs had substantially preformed the contract, and that the cost to remedy to damages unreasonable, Kent is entitled to be compensated the difference in value between the reading manufacture pipe specified in the contract and the pipe that was actually installed.
Palmer v. Mulligan (1805), resembled the case of Merritt v. Parker (1795), however with a different outcome. In Palmer v. Mulligan, Palmer was suing Mulligan to damages caused by his mill. Palmer’s mill burnt down and Mulligan built a new mill up river, so Palmer had to rebuild his mill further into the river in order to get enough water flow, this caused Parker to loose logs that were floating down river and he had to hire more labor to ensue this didn’t happen. Since Mulligan’s mill was upriver trash from his mill was floating down river and hitting Palmer’s mill causing damage. The court found in favor of Mulligan saying that Palmer’s problems were his own because Mulligan was not altering the flow of the river in any way, and that the “injuries” to his mill were being caused by the natural flow of the river and it was nearly ‘slight inconveniences’. (Palmer v. Mulligan 3 Cai. R. 307; 1805 N.Y. Lexis 343). This case showed the shift in favor to competition and the idea that competition was a good thing. It also demonstrated that not all interference with property would have been compensated. The law shifted to favor competition over prior appropriation. The law shifted from “sic utere” to “salus populi” reflecting that the welfare of the people should be the supreme of the law. (Salyer). It was seen that the people
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
Cueto may have a potential claim that the OER’s interpretation of the enabling act and ensuing actions exceeded the authority delegated to the OER by Congress. The OER’s notice of liability refers to Section (3) of the statute, and requires the OER to provide to Cueto “notice of the factual basis for the finding.” However, Cueto may argue that the OER failed to comply with this provision of their own enabling statute. The OER’s notice simply related to Cueto that their liability was assumed due to Cueto’s ownership of the pipeline. If Cueto was to challenge the notice per Sections (3) and (4) of the statute, it is highly unlikely the OER’s only evidence at the hearing would be Cueto’s ownership of the pipeline. It is reasonable to interpret that the “factual basis” described in the statute for Cueto’s liability that would be required for the OER to prevail at the hearing is the same or similar factual basis the OER must provide to a responsible party upon notice. If simply noting Cueto’s ownership of the
Vincent Morgan is a police officer in Little Rock, Arkansas who stopped Vivian Rogers for a cracked tail light. She was asked for car insurance, but she did not have it. Morgan called a tow truck, then he cancelled it because he chose to follow her home in the police vehicle. Morgan followed Rogers in the house, and he told her that he will let her off the hook for a favor. Next, Morgan began kissing all over Rogers and told her to undress. Rogers started undressing and Morgan told her that she did not have to make love to him. Roger stopped taking off her clothes and Morgan finished stripping her down. He pushed her on the bed and had sex with her. Roger started yelling because
Margaret Fuller was one of the most influential woman of her time. She was a very intelligent woman that had concurred three languages by the age of thirteen. She used her knowledge to open the eyes of many people. She was a true Transcendentalist. She was very vocal about her views on gender roles of the nineteenth century even though they were not considered traditional. She challenged the conventional gender roles of the men and women. She was not afraid to tell women to fight for their natural rights. Her audience was composed of both men and women. She makes sure to point out that when she speaks of men, she is referring to both men and women. One of her greatest literature written was The Great Lawsuit. It was
In this Supreme Court ruling majority took precedence and was the deciding factor. The final decision came down to a 6-1 vote and the opinion was delivered by Justice Hugo Black.. He delivered the news that the ruling was in favor of Mr. Steven Engel.
The case of R v Hughes will be used throughout this essay to supplement ...