|
Form Of Action
The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made during much of the history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery (or file a bill) which would set in motion a series of events eventually leading to a trial in one of the medieval common law courts. Each writ entailed a different set of procedures and remedies which together amounted to the "form of action". The forms of action were abolished during the 19th century, but they have left an indelible mark on the law. In the early Middle Ages, the focus was on the procedure that was employed to bring one's claim to the royal courts of King's Bench or Common Pleas: it was the ''form'' of one's action, not its substance, which occupied legal discussion. This restrictive approach is one of the reasons which attracted litigants to petition the King directly, which eventually led to the development of a separate court known as the Court of Chanc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Legal Claim
A cause of action or right of action, in law, is a set of facts sufficient to justify suing to obtain money or property, or to justify the enforcement of a legal right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit (such as breach of contract, battery, or false imprisonment). The legal document which carries a claim is often called a 'statement of claim' in English law, or a ' complaint' in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse. To pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff pleads or alleges facts in a complaint, the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. A cause of action generally encompasses both the legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the remedy (the relief a court is asked to grant). Often t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Norman Conquest Of England
The Norman Conquest (or the Conquest) was the 11th-century invasion and occupation of England by an army made up of thousands of Normans, Norman, Duchy of Brittany, Breton, County of Flanders, Flemish, and Kingdom of France, French troops, all led by the Duke of Normandy, later styled William the Conqueror. William's claim to the English throne derived from his familial relationship with the childless Anglo-Saxon king Edward the Confessor, who may have encouraged William's hopes for the throne. Edward died in January 1066 and was succeeded by his brother-in-law Harold Godwinson. The Norwegian king Harald Hardrada invaded northern England in September 1066 and was victorious at the Battle of Fulford on 20 September, but Godwinson's army defeated and killed Hardrada at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September. Three days later on 28 September, William's invasion force of thousands of men and hundreds of ships landed at Pevensey in Sussex in southern England. Harold march ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Donoghue V Stevenson
was a Lists of landmark court decisions, landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in Common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers. Prior to ''Donoghue v Stevenson'', liability for personal injury i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Quasi-contract
A quasi-contract (or implied-in-law contract or constructive contract) is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi Contract laws have been deduced from the Latin statement "Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura", which proclaims that no man should grow rich out of another person's loss. It was one of the central doctrines of Roman law. History In common law jurisdictions, the law of quasi-contract can be traced to the medieval form of action known as ''indebitatus assumpsit''. In essence, the plaintiff would recover a money sum from the defendant ''as if'' the defendant had promised to pay it: that is, ''as if'' there were a contract subsisting between the parties. The defendant's promise—their agreement to be bound by the "contract"—was implied by law. The law of quasi-contract was generally used to enforce restitutionary obligations. The form of a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Slade's Case
Slade's Case (or ''Slade v. Morley'') was a case in English contract law that ran from 1596 to 1602. Under the medieval common law, claims seeking the repayment of a debt or other matters could only be pursued through a writ of debt in the Court of Common Pleas, a problematic and archaic process. By 1558 the lawyers had succeeded in creating another method, enforced by the Court of King's Bench, through the action of ''assumpsit'', which was technically for deceit. The legal fiction used was that by failing to pay after promising to do so, a defendant had committed deceit, and was liable to the plaintiff. The conservative Common Pleas, through the appellate court the Court of Exchequer Chamber, began to overrule decisions made by the King's Bench on ''assumpsit'', causing friction between the courts. In Slade's Case, a case under ''assumpsit'', which was brought between judges of the Common Pleas and King's Bench, was transferred to the Court of Exchequer Chamber where the King' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Quantum Meruit
''Quantum meruit'' is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services". In the United States, the elements of ''quantum meruit'' are determined by state common law. For example, to state a claim for unjust enrichment in New York, a plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at plaintiff's expense; and (3) the circumstances were such that equity and good conscience require defendants to make restitution. Situations ''Quantum meruit'' is the measure of damages where an express contract is mutually modified by the implied agreement of the parties, or not completed. While there is often confusion between the concept of ''quantum meruit'' and that of "unjust enrichment" of one party at the expense of another, the two concepts are distinct. The concept of ''quantum meruit'' applies in (but is not limited to) the following set of situations: #When a pers ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Money Had And Received
An action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use is the name for a common law claim derived from the form of action known as ''indebitatus assumpsit''. The action enabled one person to recover money which has been received by another: for example, where a plaintiff paid money to the defendant while labouring under a mistake of fact or where there was a total failure of consideration. The action was a personal action only available in respect of money, rather than other benefits. Where the benefit received by the defendant was services or goods, the appropriate action was a ''quantum meruit'' or a ''quantum valebant'', respectively. The action for money had and received formed a part of the law of quasi-contract. Although the forms of action were abolished in the mid-19th century, reference continues to be made to the action in modern pleading.Cf. Graham Virgo, ''The Principles of the Law of Restitution'' (3rd ed, 2015). The terminology of "quasi-contract" has been repla ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Assumpsit
Assumpsit ("he has undertaken", from Latin, ''assumere''), or more fully, action in assumpsit, was a form of action at common law used to enforce what are now called obligations arising in tort and contract; and in some common law jurisdictions, unjust enrichment. The origins of the action can be traced to the 14th century, when litigants seeking justice in the royal courts turned from the writs of covenant and debt to the trespass on the case. History Fragmentation of actions for breach of agreement In the early days of the English common law, agreements were enforced in local courts. Where one wished to enforce an agreement in the royal courts, it was necessary to fit one's claim within a form of action. In the 13th and 14th centuries the forms of action for the enforcement of agreements were covenant, debt, detinue, and account. These were all writs in the ''praecipe'' form, meaning that they commanded the defendant to perform an act: for example, to keep a promise; to yiel ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Detinue
In tort law, detinue () is an action to recover for the wrongful taking of personal property. It is initiated by an individual who claims to have a greater right to their immediate possession than the current possessor. For an action in detinue to succeed, a claimant must first prove that he had better right to possession of the chattel than the defendant, and second, that the defendant refused to return the chattel once demanded by the claimant. Detinue allows for a remedy of damages for the value of the chattel, but unlike most other interference torts, detinue also allows for the recovery of the specific chattel being withheld. History Historically, detinue came in two forms: "detinue sur bailment" and "detinue sur trover". In detinue sur bailment, the defendant is in a bailment relationship with the claimant and either refuses to return the chattel or else has negligently or intentionally lost or destroyed it. The onus is on the bailee to prove that the loss of the chat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Trespass On The Case
The writs of trespass and trespass on the case are the two catchall torts from English common law, the former involving trespass against the person, the latter involving trespass against anything else which may be actionable. The writ is also known in modern times as action on the case and can be sought for any action that may be considered as a tort but is yet to be an established category. The emergence of the writ of trespass Trespass and trespass on the case, or "case", began as personal remedies in the royal courts in London in the 13th century. These early forms of trespass reflected a wide range of wrongs. In 1278, however, the Statute of Gloucester was passed. This limited actions in the royal courts to property damage worth above 40 shillings, maims, beatings or wounds. Soon after this Statute was passed, writs of Trespass appeared in a stereotyped form alleging "force and arms", or "''vi et armis''". Trespass writs alleging force and arms became known simply as trespas ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ejectment
Ejectment is a common law term for civil action to recover the possession of or title to land. It replaced the old real actions and the various possessory assizes (denoting county-based pleas to local sittings of the courts) where boundary disputes often featured. Though still used in some places, the term is now obsolete in many common law jurisdictions, in which possession and title are sued by the actions of eviction (also called possession proceedings) and quiet title (or injunctive and/or declaratory relief), respectively. Originally, successful ejectment meant recovery of possession of land, for example against a defaulting tenant or a trespasser, who did not have (or no longer had) any right to remain there. It has continued to be used for this, though in some jurisdictions the terminology has changed. Legal fiction Over time, actions of ejectment were applied to try land claims in place of older real actions such as the assize of novel disseisin. A practice develope ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Quare Impedit
In English law, ''quare impedit'' was a writ commencing a common law action for deciding a disputed right of presentation to a benefice, a right known as an advowson. It was typically brought by a patron against a bishop who refuses to appoint the patron's nominee as a priest. It obtained its name from the words of the ancient writ that started the proceeding until the 19th century. This writ was directed to the sheriff, instructing him to command the defendant to permit the plaintiff to present an appropriate candidate, or else to show "why he hinders" ( la, quare impedit) the plaintiff in the exercise of his rights. The writ of ''quare impedit'' was one of the few real actions preserved by the Real Property Limitation Act 1833, and survived up to 1860. It was abolished by the Common Law Procedure Act 1860, and proceedings in ''quare impedit'' were changed to make them as similar as possible to those in other real actions. The defendant bishop would need to fully state upon the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
