Example sentences of "see [noun prp] v. [noun prp] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | See Stewart v. Dunphy , 1980 S.L.T. ( Notes ) 93 in which it was decided such persons were guilty of an offence . |
| 2 | See Mountford v. Scott , above , P.79 , Centrovincial Estates plc v. Merchant Investors , above , p. 115 , Thomas v. Thomas above , p. 198 . |
| 3 | Misrepresentation or undue influence for which the debtor is responsible will not , unless the creditor had knowledge of what had happened , or unless the creditor was , via agency or some like route , a party to what had happened , prejudice the enforceability by the creditor of the security given by the surety : see Bainbrigge v. Browne , 18 Ch.D. 188 ; Mutual Finance Ltd. v. John Wetton & Sons Ltd. [ 1937 ] 2 K.B . |
| 4 | As to the extent of the structural alterations which the licensing board may order under this subsection. see Bushell v. Hammond [ 1904 ] 2 K.B . |
| 5 | A power for nobody to determine or for one party only to be able to determine is inconsistent with the concept of a term from year to year : see Warner v. Browne , 8 East 165 and Cheshire Lines Committee v. Lewis & Co . , |
| 6 | The owners might have claimed damages in arbitration against the yard with all the inherent unavoidable uncertainties of litigation , but in view of the position of the owners vis-d-vis their relations with Shell it would be unreasonable to hold that this is the course they should have taken : see Astley v. Reynolds ( 1731 ) 2 Str. 915 . |
| 7 | The mortgagor had no express contractual obligation to pay them : see Sinfield v. Sweet [ 1967 ] 1 W.L.R. 1489 . |
| 8 | See Maharaj v. Chand [ 1986 ] 3 All E.R. |
| 9 | The rule of law which seems to have evolved , or at least to be evolving , is that ‘ a failure to comply with the requirements of Ord. 29 , r. 1(5) of the County Court Rules 1981 is fatal to the lawfulness of the committal ’ ( see Howes v. Howes , 142 N.L.J. 753 ) and that in contempt cases the court 's powers under section 13(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 will be used only in exceptional cases . |
| 10 | It was not at once noted that a corporation may by its agents commit , or counsel or procure , the commission of criminal offences as has since been established : see Rex v. I.C.R. Haulage Ltd. [ 1944 ] K.B . |
| 11 | ( 1 ) ) , see Bury v. Kilmarnock and Loudon District Licensing Board , 1989 S.L.T. 110 . |
| 12 | On the other hand major defects in a second-hand car might well mean that it is not of merchantable quality ( see Crowther v. Shannon paragraph 7–19 below ) . |
| 13 | In cases where the discharge of a duty imposed by law has been treated as valid consideration , the courts have usually ( but not invariably ) found an act over and above , but consistent with , the duty imposed by law : see Williams v. Williams , ( above , p. 218 ) . |
| 14 | The buyer can include in his claim for damages , the amount of the damages he has had to pay out to his sub-purchaser for breach of contract , see Godley v. Perry ( paragraph 9–05 above ) . |
| 15 | In cases of contempt , however , these powers will be used only in exceptional cases : see Linkleter v. Linkleter [ 1988 ] 1 F.L.R. 360 . |
| 16 | Although the petitioner was , for the reasons indicated , entitled to appeal as of right , the present petition by the petitioner is of necessity a petition for the grant of special leave to appeal and the grant of such leave remains discretionary : see Lopes v. Valliappa Chettiar [ 1968 ] A.C. 887 . |
| 17 | But it is well established by authority of this House ( see Atkinson v. United States of America Government [ 1971 ] A.C. 197 , and Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison , Ex parte Kotronis [ 1971 ] A.C. 250 ) that , until the enactment of section 11(3) of the Act of 1989 , no such discretion was vested in the English courts in extradition matters , the relevant discretion being vested in the Secretary of State : see Ex parte Sinclair [ 1991 ] 2 A.C. 64 , 80–81 , per Lord Ackner . |
| 18 | Further , it is always open to a court , on proof of new facts , to make an order supplemental to an original order : see Ford-Hunt v. Raghbir Singh [ 1973 ] 1 W.L.R. 738 , 740 , per Brightman J. The affidavit evidence before Saville J. gave him an incomplete picture of the actual situation in Somalia and the current attitude of Her Majesty 's Government ; there is now additional relevant evidence before the court . |
| 19 | Where the question before the court relates to the upbringing of the child this principle is given statutory form by section 1(1) ( a ) of the Act of 1989 , but the test would now be the same even without the intervention of statute : see J. v. C. [ 1970 ] A.C. 668 , 697 , 724 ; In re B. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Sterilisation ) [ 1988 ] A.C. 199 , 202 , 212 . |
| 20 | For an English decision , see Schofield v. Jones [ 1955 ] 1 W.L.R. 1133 . |
| 21 | Extreme circumstances may arise when it could be right so to hold : see Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co . |
| 22 | Minor defects must , for example , be expected to materialise in a second-hand car ( see Bartlett v. Sydney Marcus above ) . |
| 23 | For an unusual case in which , on an interpretation of a bye-law , Monday , January 2 , was held to be properly treated as a Sunday for the purposes of supplying travellers , see Henderson v. Ross , 1928 J.C . |
| 24 | The clause is void and as such no consideration to support the agreement : see Bennett v. Bennett ( below , p. 697 ) .1 Now let me deal with clause 2 . |
| 25 | For an example of the latter , see Maskell v. Horner [ 1915 ] 3 K.B . |
| 26 | Such a payment has been treated as a gift : see Maskell v. Horner [ 1915 ] 3 K.B . |
| 27 | On the other hand , the mere fact that money is paid under protest will not give rise of itself to the inference of such an agreement ; though it may form part of the evidence from which it may be inferred that the payee did not intend to close the transaction : see Maskell v. Horner [ 1915 ] 3 K.B . |
| 28 | Such an agreement could easily give rise to the inference that they intended the passing of property to be similarly postponed ( see Underwood v. Burgh Castle Brick & cement Syndicate , above ) . |
| 29 | First , section 18 was irrelevant since the parties by making an f.o.b. contract had indicated their intention that property was to pass as and when the goods were loaded onto the ship ( see Underwood v. Burgh Castle Brick & cement Syndicate , above ) . |
| 30 | For a refusal to interfere with an arbitrator 's interpretation of " near " under the Workmen 's Compensation Acts , see McMillan v. Barclay , Curie & Co. ( 1899 ) 2 F. 91 . |