Example sentences of "see [adv] [noun prp] [prep] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | 6 The question of detriment It has been suggested in some cases ( see eg Coco v Clark ( AN ) ( Engineers ) Ltd [ 1969 ] RPC 41 ) that an obligation of confidence will not be enforced unless the disclosure or use of the information results in a detriment to the plaintiff or an advantage to his competitors . |
| 2 | Similar reasoning has been applied in other cases ( see eg Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [ 1970 ] 1 QB 177 ; Jaques v Lloyd D George and Ptnrs [ 1968 ] 1 WLR 625 ) . |
| 3 | Thus in Aldridge v Johnson ( 1857 ) 7 E & B 885 there was an agreement to transfer 32 bullocks valued at £192 in return for 100 quarters of barley valued at £125 , the set off of £23 to be paid in cash ; this was construed as a reciprocal sale ( see also Forsyth v Jervis ( 1816 ) 1 Stark 437 ; Sheldon v Cox ( 1824 ) 3 B & C 420 ) . |
| 4 | See also Bull v Pitney-Bowes Ltd [ 1967 ] 1 WLR 273 . |
| 5 | In Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [ 1988 ] 1 All ER 348 the initial contact between the parties was by telephone , but it was held that there was no concluded contract at that stage ( see also Saphir v Zissimos [ 1960 ] 1 Lloyd 's Rep 490 ) . |
| 6 | See also Jenkins v Reid [ 1948 ] 1 All ER 471 . |
| 7 | The advantages of having an informal system which produces a speedy , cheap and final answer to internal disputes has been repeatedly emphasized in the authorities , most recently by this House in Thomas v. University of Bradford [ 1987 ] A.C. 795 : see per Lord Griffiths , at p. 825d ; see also Patel v. University of Bradford Senate [ 1978 ] 1 W.L.R. 1488 , 1499–1500 . |
| 8 | In Hart v. Edinburgh District Licensing Board , 1987 S.L.T. ( Sh.Ct. ) 54 , the sheriff reached the same conclusion , but for different reasons , holding that 17 effectively repealed the concluding words of the proviso to 5.6(3) on the ground that they were merely an erroneous re-enactment of the corresponding part of the 1959 Act ; see also Clive v. Nithsdale District Licensing Board , 1987 S.L.T. ( Sh.Ct. ) 113 . |
| 9 | However , as was pointed out by the Court of Appeal in Coward v Comex Houlder Diving Ltd ( 1988 ) ( reported in Kemp & Kemp , Section M , para27-322 ) the conventional percentage does not necessarily apply where the wife had been earning a considerable sum herself prior to her husband 's death or presumably where she had a substantial private income : see also Davies v Hawes ( 1990 ) reported in Kemp & Kemp , Section M , para27-323 . |
| 10 | See also Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames LBC [ 1981 ] Ch 448 , especially the judgment of Brightman LJ . |
| 11 | See also Ginera v. City of Glasgow District Licensing Board , 1982 S.L.T. 136 where an application for Sunday opening in respect of a provisional grant of licence was held to be incompetent as the licence is not in force and only the holder of a public house licence can make application for Sunday opening . |
| 12 | It is extremely important that the trustees consider their discretions otherwise these may simply be set aside as the deeds of appointment were in the case of Turner v Turner [ 1983 ] 2 All ER 745 where the trustees simply did what the settlor stated without independently exercising their discretions ( see also Wilson v Turner ( 1883 ) 22 ChD 521 ) . |
| 13 | See also Rex v. Brown ( Alfred ) ( 1931 ) 23 Cr.App.R. 56 . |
| 14 | ( See also R. v. Oxford , ex p . |
| 15 | See also R. v. Board of Visitors of H.M. |
| 16 | See also R. v. Shann [ 1910 ] 2 K.B . |
| 17 | It becomes clear from the expressions used by Lord Wright speaking for the Privy Council to describe the duty and its breach , the important and significant date in relation thereto was not the date of manufacture but when the damage occurred : see also Watson v. Fram Reinforced Concrete Co . Ltd. , 1960 S.C . ( H.L. ) 92 . |
| 18 | See e.g. McKew v Holland Hannen & Cubbitts . |
| 19 | ( See e.g. Condon v Basi [ 1985 ] 2 All ER 453 where a standard of reasonable care was applied to participants in a football match . ) |
| 20 | This clause relies upon the ticket cases discussed above , ( see particularly Parker v South Eastern Railway , ante ) If such clauses are to stand it is vital that attention be drawn to them on the face of the order , and wording for this purpose is also provided at the commencement of Precedent 2 . |
| 21 | However , in the case of Lord Inchrya the payments to the beneficiary were of a periodical nature and although made out of capital ( see however Stevenson v Wishart 59 TC 740 ) were payments of income and must be taxed as such . |