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 #discharge #law
Question
In Sumpter v Hedges, because [...], the court felt that the innocent party had no choice but to complete the work. He was in possession of what he could not fail to keep. If the court had found otherwise, however, the builder would have been entitled to a quantum meruit to compensate him for the value of the work done. In the event, he was entitled to compensation for the value of the materials that he had left on site that had not been incorporated into the building and which the innocent party used to complete the work. This was because the innocent party had the choice as to whether or not to use these as they could have been returned.
Answer
the work had been done on the innocent party's land

Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
In Sumpter v Hedges, because [...], the court felt that the innocent party had no choice but to complete the work. He was in possession of what he could not fail to keep. If the court had found otherwise, however, the builder would have been entitled to a quantum meruit to compensate him for the value of the work done. In the event, he was entitled to compensation for the value of the materials that he had left on site that had not been incorporated into the building and which the innocent party used to complete the work. This was because the innocent party had the choice as to whether or not to use these as they could have been returned.
Answer
?

Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
In Sumpter v Hedges, because [...], the court felt that the innocent party had no choice but to complete the work. He was in possession of what he could not fail to keep. If the court had found otherwise, however, the builder would have been entitled to a quantum meruit to compensate him for the value of the work done. In the event, he was entitled to compensation for the value of the materials that he had left on site that had not been incorporated into the building and which the innocent party used to complete the work. This was because the innocent party had the choice as to whether or not to use these as they could have been returned.
Answer
the work had been done on the innocent party's land
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Sumpter v Hedges, because the work had been done on the innocent party's land, the court felt that the innocent party had no choice but to complete the work. He was in possession of what he could not fail to keep. If the court had found otherwise, however, the bu

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.