It is for [...]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).
Answer
the defendant
Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
It is for [...]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).
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
It is for [...]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).
Answer
the defendant
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
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.