Undue Influence Notes

Equity is that part in the law that moderates the harshness of common law and statute and because of this persons seeking assistance from an unconscionable transaction have been able to find relief through equity. Although equity only appears in the most repugnant of situations, it comes as in disbelief, that the courts would consider a newer level of standard for unconscionability. The following paper considers the effect of the statement made and the ramifications of the statement through equity.

This clause allows a Vendor to rescind the contract when the Purchaser brings a claim against the Vendor for more than 5% of the purchase price. This clause is commonly reduced to a lesser amount or, as in this case, deleted altogether. The consequence upon John is that if he were to make a claim, for example; for an encroachment not clearly disclosed (other than a claim for delay) against the Vendor, no matter how slight, the Vendor has the option to rescind. The Vendor must serve notice of this intention in accordance with 7.1.2, and John then as the option to waive his claim (so that he may still purchase the property without

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

27). By following this doctrine of precedent, stare decisis, judges are bound to follow the ratio decidendi, the reasons given, for the rulings in previous cases from higher up in their jurisdictional hierarchy. Rulings from other jurisdictions can also be used as persuasive force and argument, as can the obiter dicta, the judges’ comments other than those given as the reason for the ruling. In this way Judge made law resolves conflict and injustice by ruling consistently with rulings made in previous, characteristically similar cases. An inconsistent approach to similar situations cannot equate to being fair, just or equitable. In this way the ALS is not biased or prejudice, is applied equally to all, and ensures that the law is based on fairness and justice.

It is argued, that the imposition of this rigid structure would only undermine the settlor’s wishes and result in the courts finding the trust to be administratively unworkable. It has been stated in Re Manisty’s Settlement “that a power cannot be uncertain merely because it is wide in

However, contracting parties can also treat breach as material when expressly provided, even if objectively– the effect of that breach is unimportant. This is interpreted in Wade v Waldon, where the Lord President sets the criteria for rescission as a matter about the terms of the contract– whether stipulations go “to the root of the contract”, than the breach itself (Wade v Waldon, 1909 ).

Each Party enters into this release knowing that there may be unknown claims which it is releasing and waiving by executing this

outweighs its prejudicial effect. People v. Albarran (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 214, 223. We will not disturb a trial court’s exercise of discretion under Section 352 unless it exceeds the bounds of reason. People v. Funes (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1519.

The following case American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Kennedy & Crawford, 103 Va. 171 (Va.1904) it is expressed that; where the consideration for the promise of one party is the promise of the other party, there must be absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement. Both parties must be bound or neither is bound. A party making a promise is bound to nothing until a promisee, within a reasonable time, engages to do, or else do or begins to do, the thing which is the condition of the first promise. Until such engagement or such doing, the promisor may withdraw his promise, because there is no mutuality, and therefore no consideration for it.

Let me begin by assessing the current situation and relationship with Don. Don and I met because of our individual desires to walk with Christ. We developed our friendship that eventually evolved to a business relationship; we are both small business owners. Our business venture started under favorable circumstances consistent with implied duty of faith and fair dealings. According to Kubasek, Brennan, &Browne (2012), an implied contract is formed by conduct of involved parties rather than written or spoken words. That was exactly the case between us. Don would place routine

Non-Compulsory influence is non-forceful and non-violent, it allows for freedom of choice and creates behavior compliance. Within non-compulsory influence there are multiple dimensions that consist of either an ends of influence, seeking either mental transformation or behavioral modification, or goals of influence, using either currencies of expression or currencies of power. According to Dr. Stoda, (2012), “Compliance-gaining is an activity of influence that does not seek to affect changes in mental attitudes” (p. 13). By using compliance-gaining a person is only looking to change the end behavior, however convincing creates a mind shift, a transformation of the consciousness, the persuader has a greater effect that will last.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

of an agreement, for a party that breaks a contract may be sued in court for the

Introduction: In this assignment I will go over a few legal terms in relation to contract law. I will also talk about a few precedents that help explain the law.