Plaintiff b At 2 blocks
-Blandof
parties
oth
neefarming
-s
were based in
↑
UEbutland was in N2. seller
-
said i place is utilised
-? itcan
-
properly
percepsawing
↳
negotiation
r
the parties
had experience of
no
sheep farming so court
held this was move expression of opinion than
an
a fact.
Essu petroleum estimated that particular
a
petrol station would sell 200, orogallon by 3rd near
operations,
of mardon believed this and
from them. Mardon was short
bought
some
petrol
and Esso petroleum
on
sued. Mardon said
money
he was
/
promised he would sell 200,000 by 3rd
he had not even sold
100,000 shalf).
year while
Esso said this was a statement o f opinion
↑
butcourt ned thetas Esso's business
any primary
was petrole sellings, they had good know-how of
a
how much would sell. Thus, court
held this
they
was a statement of fact and itwas misrepresentation.
-> You should take into account how well
both parties know the ↑
acts of both sides.
, >two
parties married but
- then split up entered into
a settlementagreement.
~ wite stated itwas
her intention to
never re
-marry. She
changed
married
her mind and
Husband
claimed thatagain.
she nac
Gutten moneyI from
settlemen based
on false intention. No
misrepresention as
intentions
m e a n
can change.
Tutorial 5
, ANA Stilk v Myrick: is
consideration for
-
-> Court found that there not sufficient
as sailors one all their
payment
⑰
extra
duties
generally their
to the captain.
titherperforming jub
they are
not entitled payment.
Williams v
Roftey Bros
promises make additional
-
found that when
-> court
party a to
payment for complete performance of the act and in
turn recieves a benefit avoids a disbenefit, the promise
or
The consideration to the
the benefit
is
binding.
which is
is
party paying.
North Ocean shipping~Hyundai? to
-> Court found that
although the rule
relating
consideration in respect to performance an exis of
Yog
contractual duMy remained unchanged, builders
increase in the letter of credit
-
provided good
-
consideration.
-Blandof
parties
oth
neefarming
-s
were based in
↑
UEbutland was in N2. seller
-
said i place is utilised
-? itcan
-
properly
percepsawing
↳
negotiation
r
the parties
had experience of
no
sheep farming so court
held this was move expression of opinion than
an
a fact.
Essu petroleum estimated that particular
a
petrol station would sell 200, orogallon by 3rd near
operations,
of mardon believed this and
from them. Mardon was short
bought
some
petrol
and Esso petroleum
on
sued. Mardon said
money
he was
/
promised he would sell 200,000 by 3rd
he had not even sold
100,000 shalf).
year while
Esso said this was a statement o f opinion
↑
butcourt ned thetas Esso's business
any primary
was petrole sellings, they had good know-how of
a
how much would sell. Thus, court
held this
they
was a statement of fact and itwas misrepresentation.
-> You should take into account how well
both parties know the ↑
acts of both sides.
, >two
parties married but
- then split up entered into
a settlementagreement.
~ wite stated itwas
her intention to
never re
-marry. She
changed
married
her mind and
Husband
claimed thatagain.
she nac
Gutten moneyI from
settlemen based
on false intention. No
misrepresention as
intentions
m e a n
can change.
Tutorial 5
, ANA Stilk v Myrick: is
consideration for
-
-> Court found that there not sufficient
as sailors one all their
payment
⑰
extra
duties
generally their
to the captain.
titherperforming jub
they are
not entitled payment.
Williams v
Roftey Bros
promises make additional
-
found that when
-> court
party a to
payment for complete performance of the act and in
turn recieves a benefit avoids a disbenefit, the promise
or
The consideration to the
the benefit
is
binding.
which is
is
party paying.
North Ocean shipping~Hyundai? to
-> Court found that
although the rule
relating
consideration in respect to performance an exis of
Yog
contractual duMy remained unchanged, builders
increase in the letter of credit
-
provided good
-
consideration.
