Brewer V Mann

The Plaintiff is claiming $35 million from the State of NSW, which is purported to be vicariously liable for the Land and Environment Court and Pain J [1]. This claim includes nullifying Pain J’s judgment [14], and it is accompanied by Motions to uphold Lloyd J’s dismissal and refund the Plaintiff’s filing fees [2].

Witnesses for the complainant: Anatoly Zlatokrasov, owner of AZTE, Steven, Pinkow, Joshua, Teodor Epelbaum, owner of AZTE, and Andrei Lissenkov, owner of Livox and JCP Autos.

Accounting to the Statute of Frauds , "if a contract is required to be in writing under the Statute of Frauds but is not, the contract is unenforceable. The parties may voluntarily perform a contract that is unenforceable." (Cheeseman, p158) Actually, they both signed a written agreement that "as is, without any warranties" after the Marge told Joan that she would fix any problems with the drivetrain that arose in the first 1,000 miles. The first 1,000 miles should had been written on the contract in order to become enforceable. Since the promise was made before the negotiation, there might have some change before the agreement was signs such as lower the price. So, Joan would not be honer for the first 1,000 miles warranties in this case as she signed "as is". Now, let's discuss the repair fee, Under UCC Statute of Frauds Section 2-201(1) A section of the Uniform Commercial Code which states that sales contracts for the sale of goods costing $500 or more must be in writing. (Cheeseman, 223) Since the repair fee was under $500 in this case, no writing contract needed to be made. Since the repair fee is in oral agreements that was made later and modify the

Identify any person not already named as a party to this lawsuit whom you contend caused or contributed to the occurrence complained of, including any architect, engineer, designer, contractor, subcontractor or others.

Fiona Burch with her two kids (plaintiff) claims a case against shire of YR, and a company of quality roads pvt ltd as they are responsible death of the Michael on basis of defendants caused the break of his duty and responsibility.

In the Jacob & Youngs, Incorporated vs. George E. Kent case, Jacob & Youngs, the plaintiff, claims that there was a breach of a clause in the contract with the defendant, George E. Kent. The clause stated that any work that is either defective or not in accordance with specifications will be

On or about June 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s automobile, a 2006 Lincoln LS, was stolen from her and burned to the point where the property damage to the automobile was determined to be a total loss. At the time, the Plaintiff was covered by an automobile insurance police with the

(quality) did not arrive, Blimka sued. Defendant was properly served in Maine but did not

Parties involved in the case are the Crown and the accused. The crown was represented by Mr C Thompson and his solicitors were the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions. The accused is Neil Allen Baker represented by Mr P Morrissey SC and Ms C Hollingsworth with the solicitors being The Office of Emma Turnball.

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

Upon my arrival, I spoke with the complainant Jerry McDonald. Mr. McDonald told me he went to town to runs some errands. When Mr. McDonald returned back to his residence he observed his Lincoln car was not at his residence, so he figure his wife had went to town in the car. Mr. McDonald told me when he walked inside his residence his wife was inside their residence. He asked his wife where the car was and she had thought Mr. McDonald had taken it to town. Mr. McDonald stated whoever stole his vehicle had to hot wire the vehicle because the keys were not in it. Mr. McDonald gave me the title

I, Nathanael Webbe Ferguson of 1 Eleanor Close am an ex-tenant of 4 Hobart Croft and was a cohabiting housemate of Mr Joseph Lasore [the defendant of this claim].

As a result of the events referred to in their particulars of claim the claimant is now represented by Bloomingdale Solicitors to launch to launch a civil action against Friends Health NHS Foundation Trust on 31 August 2010.

The Sales of Goods Act 1893 provides the definition of ‘condition’ and ‘warranty’. During the period between 1893 to 1962 both ‘condition’ and ‘warranty’ was generally accepted that they were the only two types of terms which assist in ‘identifying the breaches which entitled the injured party to terminate the contract. In the turning point of 1962, a new type of term-intermediate term brought about a whole new page into the Law of Contract. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd vs Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd is the key case which owns the credit for this discovery. In the case, the ship owner hired out the Hong Kong fir, ‘being in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service’. The ship was delivered on 13 February 1957, sailing

Lewis sold his car to a man who claimed to be Richard Greene, a popular star. The man paid by cheque, providing a film studio pass as a proof of his identity. He sold the car to Avery. The cheque had been taken from a stolen cheque book and was later dishonoured. Lewis sued Avery to recover his car. It was held that this contract cannot be voided as the plaintiff cannot show the importance of identity. The mistaken belief to the credibility of act is not sufficient.