Keighley, Maxted & Co V Durant (1901)

-The Reasoning: the face that the appellant did not like the fee indicated does not preclude the finding of a binding contract. Appellant intended to negotiate, but never did so. Appellant

It was a term of the contract that the agent was not to sell goods supplied by anyone other than the principal. The agent sold other goods and was dismissed.

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

The trial court denied appellant judgment against appellees because he found appellees had not acted for or on behalf of J&R Construction.

D) an agent who discloses only the name of his or her principal in a transaction

The trial court held for the defendants because he found that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. No appeal has been taken from the judgment entered on that issue. [No opinion issued from this court]

The trial court judged in favor of Plaintiff, thus, Plaintiff won and Defendant lost. The question of fact was if a contract existed between the parties. The trial court decided that the contract existed, even Ivan was against it, if he had read through Application for Advertising, he would have realized that he was signing contract.

u. P2) This implies that the seller who intends to enter a contract with a customer has a duty to disclose exactly what the customer is buying and what the terms of the sale are.

In 2012, a marine project manager called Bellingham Marine Inc. (“Bellingham”) hired Major Engineering Marine Inc. (“Major”) for a project to build a travel lift pier at a harbor. Bellingham then hired a civil engineering firm, Moffatt & Nichol

This essay will discuss the Supreme Court decision in FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) . The issue in this case was whether a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on constructive trust for his principal. This topic is a “relentless and seemingly endless debate” , as Sir Terence Etherton described, and that the “remedy awarded has vacillated for the last 200-odd years” . The major reason for the debate is because the principal will have propriety claim as opposed to a mere equitable compensation, if the bribe or commission is held on a constructive trust . The principal will be in a much more advantageous position if he was held to have propriety

The seller’s agent did more harm than good. When Marsha contacted the seller’s agent, he/she was overjoyed and proceeded to accept Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. The agent fulfilled their duty to the principal through loyalty, and accounting. The notification duty fell short when the agent failed to alert the seller of his/her purchase acceptance made on her behalf. In this instance, obedience and performance seem to be similar duties. Not enough information is given to know whether the real estate agent was permitted to accept offers on behalf of the seller without first consulting her.

It is within the agent’s apparent authority to sell a property on behalf of the principal to make descriptions of the property to the buyer. However, if the representations made are false, the principal will be liable for the acts of that agent where the leading case is Aliotta v Broadmeadows Bus Service Ltd (1988) A.T.P.R. 40 – 873 which the court held that the agents has mislead the plaintiff by not revealing all the material information to the plaintiff.

Conceptually, reasonable expectations of honest men and sanctity of contract are not in conflict. Indeed, they often point to the same direction – it is the reasonable expectation of an honest man that an agreement should be executed. Although it is observed that the two themes usually work side by side, this essay argues that in regards to the rules of acceptance of unilateral contracts, the English courts place more emphasis on reasonable expectations when making decisions.