Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
It is for the defendant to prove that the claimant would not have recouped the expenditure had the contract gone ahead
Answer
Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 2026

Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
It is for the defendant to prove that the claimant would not have recouped the expenditure had the contract gone ahead
Answer
?

Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
It is for the defendant to prove that the claimant would not have recouped the expenditure had the contract gone ahead
Answer
Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 2026
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It is for the defendant to prove that the claimant would not have recouped the expenditure had the contract gone ahead (Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 2026).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.