|
Attorney General V Blake
is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded. Facts George Blake was a member of the Secret Intelligence Service. He signed a Official Secrets Act 1911 declaration in his employment contract not to disclose information about his work, even after his employment ceased. In 1951, he became a Soviet agent. He was discovered in 1961 and the British government imprisoned him in Wormwood Scrubs (HM Prison). He escaped in 1966 and fled to the Soviet Union. He wrote a book about it and his secret services work called ''No Other Choice''. He received a publishing contract for its release in 1989, with Jonathan Cape Ltd. The information in the book was no longer confidential. Blake received advanced payments and was entitled to more. The Crown brought an action for all the profits he made on the book including those that he had not yet recei ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Functions Of The House Of Lords
Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, it for many centuries had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers, for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England. Appeals were technically not to the House of Lords, but rather to the King-in-Parliament. In 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act devolved the appellate functions of the House to an Appellate Committee, composed of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (informally referred to as Law Lords). They were then appointed by the Lord Chancellor in the same manner as other judges. During the 20th and early 21st century, the judicial functions were gradually removed. Its final trial of a peer was in 1935, and in 1948, the use of special courts for such trials was abolished. The procedure of impeachment became seen as obsolete. In 2009, t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Damages
At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages. Compensatory damages are further categorized into special damages, which are economic losses such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical expenses, and general damages, which are non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress. Rather than being compensatory, at common law damages may instead be nominal, contemptuous or exemplary. History Among the Saxons, a monetary value called a ''weregild'' was assigned to every human being and every piece of property in the Salic Code. If property was stolen or someone was injured or killed, the guilty person had to pay the wer ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Trusts Law
English trust law concerns the protection of assets, usually when they are held by one party for another's benefit. Trusts were a creation of the English law of property and obligations, and share a subsequent history with countries across the Commonwealth and the United States. Trusts developed when claimants in property disputes were dissatisfied with the common law courts and petitioned the King for a just and equitable result. On the King's behalf, the Lord Chancellor developed a parallel justice system in the Court of Chancery, commonly referred as equity. Historically, trusts have mostly been used where people have left money in a will, or created family settlements, charities, or some types of business venture. After the Judicature Act 1873, England's courts of equity and common law were merged, and equitable principles took precedence. Today, trusts play an important role in financial investment, especially in unit trusts and in pension trusts (where trustees and fun ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Boardman V Phipps
''Boardman v Phipps'' 966UKHL 2is a landmark English trusts law case concerning the duty of loyalty and the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Facts Tom Boardman, Baron Boardman, Mr Tom Boardman was the solicitor of a family trust.See the case report at 9672 AC 46 The trust assets include a 27% holding in a company (a textile company with factories in Coventry, Nuneaton and in Australia through a subsidiary). Boardman was concerned about the accounts of the company, and thought that to protect the trust a majority shareholding is required. He and a beneficiary, Tom Phipps, went to a shareholders' general meeting of the company. They realised together that they could turn the company around. They suggested to a trustee (Mr Fox) that it would be desirable to acquire a majority shareholding, but Fox said it was completely out of the question for the trustees to do so. With the knowledge of the trustees, Boardman and Phipps decided to purchase the shares themselves. They bought a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Keech V Sandford
is a foundational case, deriving from English trusts law, on the fiduciary duty of loyalty. It concerns the law of trusts and has affected much of the thinking on directors' duties in company law. It holds that a trustee owes a strict duty of loyalty so that there can never be a possibility of ''any'' conflict of interest. The case's importance derives partly from its historical context, with the South Sea Bubble. Lord King LC, who decided the case, replaced the former Lord Chancellor, Thomas Parker, 1st Earl of Macclesfield who was tried and found guilty in 1725 for accepting bribes and speculating with and losing client money in the South Sea crash. Lord Macclesfield had, probably not coincidentally previously held that a fiduciary was entitled to take money from a trust, invest it on their own behalf, and keep the profit, if they restored money to the trust. ''Keech'' reversed this, and the law in England and the UK has maintained a strict opposition to any possibility of a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Experience Hendrix LLC V PPX Enterprises Inc
''Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc'' 003EWCA Civ 323is an English contract law case, concerning the availability of restitution damages for breach of contract. Facts Experience Hendrix LLC was the successor in title to Jimi Hendrix's estate. PPX Enterprises Inc, PPX Enterprises were his music publishers and were suing him before he died. Three years after, they settled (1973). The agreement was that PPX were entitled to masters of some of his recordings, in Sch A of the agreement, provided PPX paid royalties to Experience Hendrix. In breach of the agreement, PPX granted licences to masters not in Sch A. Experience Hendrix sued for the breach. Judgment Court of Appeal said it would be unjust if PPX could breach the settlement and avoid paying royalties, which they would have had to pay if the songs were on Sch A. But the case was not exceptional enough to allow an account for all profits. Mance LJ said they should pay ‘a reasonable sum’ for using the material. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ruxley Electronics & Construction V Forsyth
''Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth'' 995UKHL 8is an English contract law case, concerning the choice between an award of damages for the cost of curing a defect in a building contract or (when that is unreasonable) for awarding damages for loss of "amenity". Facts Ruxley agreed to build a swimming pool in Forsyth's garden. The contract specified that the pool would have a diving area seven feet, six inches deep. When constructed, the diving area was only six feet deep. This was still a safe depth for diving and one which did not affect value of the pool. Forsyth was not happy, however, and he brought an action for breach of contract claiming the cost of having a pool demolished and rebuilt (the cost of cure), a sum of £21,540. At first instance the judge rejected the claim for 'cost of cure' damages on the ground that it was an unreasonable claim in the circumstances, but awarded Forsyth 'loss of amenity damages' of £2500. This award was reversed by the Court ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Central Intelligence Agency
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA ), known informally as the Agency and historically as the Company, is a civilian foreign intelligence service of the federal government of the United States, officially tasked with gathering, processing, and analyzing national security information from around the world, primarily through the use of human intelligence (HUMINT) and performing covert actions. As a principal member of the United States Intelligence Community (IC), the CIA reports to the Director of National Intelligence and is primarily focused on providing intelligence for the President and Cabinet of the United States. President Harry S. Truman had created the Central Intelligence Group under the direction of a Director of Central Intelligence by presidential directive on January 22, 1946, and this group was transformed into the Central Intelligence Agency by implementation of the National Security Act of 1947. Unlike the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd V Parkside Homes Ltd
''Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd'' 9741 WLR 798 () is an English land law and English contract law case, concerning the measure and availability of damages for breach of negative covenant in circumstances where the court has confirmed a covenant is legally enforceable and refused as it may find, as unconscionable, to issue an order for specific performance or an injunction. Such a remedy, which had precedent before the judgment, has since become firmly known as ''Wrotham Park'' damages, which are awarded (in lieu of specific performance or an injunction) under the jurisdiction created (powers vested in the court) by s. 2 of the Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (also known as Lord Cairns' Act). Such damages centre on the ''hypothetical negotiated value'' for a release of the covenant and which so in turn may look to a share of the profits from the business venture enabled by the breach; the court decided 5% of profits should be made payable. Facts Wrotham Park is an ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Robinson V Harman
''Robinson v Harman'' (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 is an English contract law case, which is best known for a classic formulation by Parke B (at 855) on the purpose and measure of compensatory damages for breach of contract that, Facts Mr Harman wrote a letter, dated 15 April 1846, agreeing to grant Mr Robinson a lease on a house in High Street, Croydon, for 21 years, starting on 19 September at £110 a year. Then Mr Harman changed his mind and refused to complete the lease. It turned out the house was worth much more than £110 a year. Mr Harman had inherited the property from his recently deceased father. Although Mr Robinson's solicitor (whose fee was £15 12s 8d) had enquired whether the will may have vested the property in trustees, Mr Harman had said there was nothing of the sort, that it was his property out and out, and that he alone had the power of leasing. In fact trustees had got the property and Mr Harman had been entitled to only a moiety of the rent during his life. As a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Chancery Amendment Act 1858
The Chancery Amendment Act 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 27) also known as Lord Cairns' Act after Sir Hugh Cairns, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed the English Court of Chancery, the Irish Chancery and the Chancery Court of the County Palatine of Lancaster to award damages, in addition to their previous function of awarding injunctions and specific performance. The Act also made several procedural changes to the Chancery courts, most notably allowing them to call a jury, and allowed the Lord Chancellor to amend the practice regulations of the courts. By allowing the Chancery courts to award damages it narrowed the gap between the common law and equity courts and accelerated the passing of the Judicature Act 1873, and for that reason has been described by Ernest Pollock as "prophetic". After the English Court of Chancery was dissolved by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 the Act lost relevance, and in England and Wales it was gradually repealed by ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
