Example sentences of "see [noun prp] v " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | If the court can spell out an implied agreement that all parties recognised that the continuing partners would be entitled to carry on the practice after the departure of an outgoing partner , the right to a full dissolution will not be available , but the outgoing partner will have the benefit of s43 of the Act and the continuing partners will , after all necessary accounts and inquiries have been taken , be obliged to pay him the value of his interest in the firm — see Sobell v Boston [ 1975 ] 1 WLR 1587 . |
| 2 | Where an assistant solicitor 's employment came to an end on the dissolution of the firm , such dissolution was held to constitute a breach of his contract of employment such that the restrictive covenants imposed on him ceased to be enforceable — see Briggs v Oates [ 1990 ] ICR 473 . |
| 3 | Such consent need not be expressed but can be implied by conduct depending upon the circumstances ( see Bilbrough v Holmes [ 1876 ] 5 Ch D 255 ) . |
| 4 | Any notice of disclaimer provided that it is " bold , precise and compelling " ( see Zawadski v Sleigh [ 1975 ] RTR 113 ) should establish the defence . |
| 5 | The customer relies on the dealer to provide a suitable and effective system and , consequently , there is a duty on the dealer to select and recommend an adequate system ( see Stewart v Reavell 's Garage [ 1952 ] , discussed in Chapter 14 ) . |
| 6 | The number of days in a month will obviously depend on the month in question ; thus if a contract requires goods to be paid for within one month of delivery , and goods are delivered on 19 February , they must be paid for by 19 March ( see Dodds v Walker [ 1980 ] 1 WLR 1061 ) . |
| 7 | The courts will normally refuse to allow claims of confidentiality in respect of the names and addresses of employees so as to prevent offers of other employment being made to them by departing staff ( see Baker v Gibbons [ 1972 ] 1 WLR 693 and Searle ( GD ) & Co Ltd v Celltech Ltd [ 1982 ] FSR 92 ) . |
| 8 | It is a long established rule of law that where a contracting party refuses to perform his contractual obligations by giving a wrong reason , this does not subsequently deprive him of a justification which in fact existed at the time of refusal ( see Taylor v Oakes ( 1922 ) 27 Com Cas 261 ; Braithwaite v Foreign Hardwood Co Ltd [ 1905 ] 2 KB 543 ; and Fercometal SARL v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [ 1989 ] AC 788 discussed in Chapter 15 ) . |
| 9 | To avoid the husband making a sale or charging the property ( standing in his sole name ) in the period between the decree absolute ( when the Class F protection ceasessee above ) and the completion of the conveyance to the wife or lodging of the transfer at HM Land Registry : ( a ) Unregistered Land A pending action under s5 of the Land Charges Act 1972 ( fee £1.00 ) should be registered by or on behalf of the wife ( in Form K3 ) provided the divorce petition has contained a request for a transfer of real property under s24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 ; such a registration survives the decree absolute ( see Whittingham v Whittingham [ 1978 ] 2 WLR 936 and Perez-Adamson v Perez-Rivas [ 1987 ] 2 WLR 500 ) . |
| 10 | If an order is then placed , it may be held that the resulting contract incorporates the terms from the catalogue ( etc ) by reference ( see Snow v Woodcroft [ 1985 ] BCLC 52 ) . |
| 11 | Thus if a partner obtains a renewal of a lease of partnership property in his own name , he is not permitted to treat that lease as his own property to the exclusion of his co-partners while the business continues and before there has been a distribution of assets following a dissolution ( see Featherstonhaugh v Fenwick ( 1810 ) 17 Ves Jr 298 ) . |
| 12 | There is little in this which is peculiar to a solicitors ' partnership dispute but with regard to the last noted remedy the court recognises the great and possibly irreparable harm that could be done by appointing a receiver over a professional firm and may be reluctant to make such an order at the behest of one disaffected partner ( see Floydd v Cheney [ 1970 ] Ch 602 and Sobell v Boston [ 1975 ] 1 WLR 1587 ) . |
| 13 | The property is not to be sold until : ( i ) ( a ) the youngest child attains the age of eighteen years or ( b ) the youngest child shall cease full time education whichever is the later or ( ii ) the death of the Petitioner or ( iii ) the Petitioner shall remarry whichever shall first occur The above type of order is commonly known as a Mesher order ( after Mesher v Mesher and Hall [ 1980 ] 1 All ER 126 ) , and whilst it has been criticised ( see Mortimer v Mortimer [ 1986 ] 2 FLR 315 ) the court is still of the view that such an order might provide the best solution ( see Clutton v Clutton ( 1990 ) Times , 14 November ) . |
| 14 | It should be appreciated that if one party to the marriage has no wish to occupy the matrimonial home that party is not entitled to register a Class F Land Charge against the owner ( see Barnett v Hassett [ 1981 ] 1 WLR 1385 where the husband left the wife 's house and did not wish to occupy it ) . |
| 15 | One aspect of this requirement is that the document on which the terms are printed should be the sort of document which would reasonably be expected to include contract terms ( see Chapelton v Barry UDC [ 1940 ] 1 KB 532 ) . |
| 16 | See Putsman v Taylor [ 1927 ] 1 KB 741 and Lyne-Pirkis v Jones [ 1969 ] 1 WLR 1293 per Edmund Davies LJ . |
| 17 | For an instance where the medical expenses claimed were held to be unreasonably high , see Roberts v Roberts ( 1960 ) The Times , 11 March ; for cases where very high medical expenses were held to have been reasonably incurred , see Winkworth v Hubbard [ 1960 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep 150 and Hamp v Sisters of St Joseph 's Mount Carmel Convent School Bar Library Transcript No 305B of 1973 ( Kemp & Kemp D2-011 and D2-100 ( Sweet & Maxwell ) , The Quantum of Damages , 2 , para 5 – 011 ) . |
| 18 | " Forthwith " generally means " as soon as reasonably practicable " or " without delay " ( see Roberts v Brett ( 1865 ) 11 HL Cas 337 ) rather than " immediately " . |
| 19 | However , it may also be that if the clause is drawn so widely as to be capable of applying in unreasonable circumstances , or if it purports to exclude a liability which can not be excluded under the Act , the court may find it unreasonable to apply it to other circumstances ( see Walker v Boyle [ 1982 ] 1 All ER 634 ) . |
| 20 | If the application to amend is only made at the hearing , if it will prejudice the opposing party , especially if it shifts the burden of proof it may be disallowed ( see Emin v Mustapha ( 1982 ) The Times , 24 October ) . |
| 21 | This is elementary contract law , because , obviously , once the contract has been formed it is too late to try to change it by adding additional terms ( see Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [ 1949 ] 1 KB 532 ) . |
| 22 | The result may have been otherwise had the hirers received previous notice of their obligation to insure which , of course , invites scrutiny of the issue relating to incorporation of terms ( see Olley v Marlborough Court [ 1949 ] 1 KB 532 ) . |
| 23 | It does not cover the dismissal by the vendor prior to the sale for the reason that the purchaser will either not buy the business if it contains certain employees or alternatively will pay a lower price ( see Wheeler v Patel [ 1987 ] ICR 631 ) . |
| 24 | Whether the appropriate measure will be nearer to a full commercial rate or to a nil rate ( as with NHS services ) will depend on the facts of each case ( see Housecroft v Burnett [ 1986 ] 1 All ER 332 ) . |
| 25 | Again , a customer list is not a conclusive factor but is a helpful factor ( see Rencoule v Hunt [ 1967 ] 2 ITR 475 and MacDonald v Bull and Patterson [ 1966 ] 1 KIR 734 ) particularly if the vendor assists in the transfer of its customers to the purchaser . |
| 26 | Although agreement may be reached between the parties as to the future of the matrimonial home , it is strongly advised that such agreement be embodied in a " consent order " of the court ; if the court does not have the power directly to make an order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 ( for instance in relation to repairs to property held subject to certain conditions and in relation to payment of premiums of life assurance policies ) the same effect can be achieved by formulating the obligations of each party as undertakings given to the court ( see Livesey v Jenkins [ 1985 ] 1 All ER 106 and Salter , Matrimonial Consent Orders and Agreements , 2nd edn , Longman 1991 ) . |
| 27 | If and so long as the terms of any settlement are such that any person has power to pay or apply income or capital to or for the benefit of the settlor or his spouse , all income arising under the settlement shall be treated for all the purposes of the Income Tax Acts as the income of the settlor for that year and not the income of any other person ( TA 1988 , s674 ; and see Blausten v IRC ( 1971 ) 47 TC 542 ( CA ) ) . |
| 28 | 2 per cent from service of writ to judgment ( see Birkett v Hayes , confirmed by the House of Lords in Wright v British Railways Board ) . |
| 29 | The property is not to be sold until : ( i ) ( a ) the youngest child attains the age of eighteen years or ( b ) the youngest child shall cease full time education whichever is the later or ( ii ) the death of the Petitioner or ( iii ) the Petitioner shall remarry whichever shall first occur The above type of order is commonly known as a Mesher order ( after Mesher v Mesher and Hall [ 1980 ] 1 All ER 126 ) , and whilst it has been criticised ( see Mortimer v Mortimer [ 1986 ] 2 FLR 315 ) the court is still of the view that such an order might provide the best solution ( see Clutton v Clutton ( 1990 ) Times , 14 November ) . |
| 30 | ( See Pitts v Hunt for possible tests . ) |