|

Rules for Interpretation of Contracts: Implied Terms of Contract

Conditions for using ‘Implied Terms’ for Interpretation  Lord Simon in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd vs. The Shire of Hastings [1978] 52 AJLR 20 held that- “…for a term to be implied, the following conditions (which may overlap) must be satisfied: it must be reasonable and equitable; it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the…

|

Rules for Interpretation of Contracts: Pre-Contractual Documents/Draft Agreements

Antecedent Agreements A concluded antecedent agreement may be relied upon in interpreting a later contract in pursuance of that agreement.  However, an antecedent agreement may be considered only on the basis of its particular facts and circumstances. Pre-Contractual Documents/Draft Agreements A concluded contract may be preceded by multiple drafts. Draft agreements may even be signed. Draft…

|

Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd vs. West Bromwich Building Society

Five Principles for Interpretation of Contracts Facts  There was a contract between a Norwegian and a German company for supply of 200 tonnes of haaksjoringskod. This substance could mean shark meat or whale meat. When the German company entered into the contract, the German company intended to import whale meat. However, the Norwegian company thought…

| | | |

Case List: Jurisdiction in Cyberspace / Conflict of Laws

CASE LIST Sarl Louis Feraud International vs. Viewfinder, Inc.  No. 05-5927-CV, 2007 WL 1598057, 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Compuserve, Inc. vs. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) [Text] Zippo Manufacturing Co. vs. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) [Text] Panavision International, L.P. vs. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998), aff’g 945…

|

Satyabrata Ghose vs. Mugneeram Bangur & Co.

Citation: 1954 AIR 44 Facts Satyabrata (plaintiff), assignee of Bejoy Krishna Roy, sued defendant alongwith Bejoy as party defendant, for wrongfully repudiating the contract of developing the lands which were sold to the plaintiff, and asked for specific performance of the same. Defendant took the defence of frustration as the lands which needed to be developed…

| |

Pannalal Jankidas Vs. Mohanlal and Anr.

Citation: AIR 1951 SC 144 Facts Plaintiffs, as agents of the defendants had stored the goods in Government godowns, requiring permit to supply them to the defendants. In the meanwhile, due to the fire in godown, the goods got burned up and plaintiffs got compensation of 50% of damage caused in respect of the goods as…

|

Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs.Union of India and Anr.

Citation: AIR 2000 SC 2003 Facts GDA, though informed the plaintiffs about the allotment of plots to them, yet even after more than considerable time had elapsed, never conveyed the property to them. Latter approached MRTP Commission which granted them not only amount paid by them to the defendants for the possession of the plot alongwith…

|

F.T. Kingsley vs. The Secretary Of State For India

Citation: 72 Ind Cas 270 Facts Plaintiff obtained a license to catch elephants from the Deputy Commissioner for two years; however, the sanction of the government was not obtained by the plaintiff till 15 days had elapsed, secondly, officers wrongfully denied to accept the prescribed royalty and transit passes were not issued to him, such…