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 #terms
Question
FACTS: There was a contract between the defendants, who owned a Thames-side wharf and jetty, and the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs' vessel, The Moorcock, should be unloaded and reloaded at the defendants' wharf. The Moorcock was, accordingly, moored alongside the wharf but, as the tide fell, she took to the ground and sustained damage on account of the unevenness of the river bed at that place. The plaintiffs brought this action for breach of contract. HELD: There was an implied term in the contract that the defendants would take reasonable care to see that the berth was safe as both parties must have known at the time of the agreement that if the ground were not safe the ship would be endangered when the tide ebbed. There was a breach of this implied term.
Answer
The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64

Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
FACTS: There was a contract between the defendants, who owned a Thames-side wharf and jetty, and the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs' vessel, The Moorcock, should be unloaded and reloaded at the defendants' wharf. The Moorcock was, accordingly, moored alongside the wharf but, as the tide fell, she took to the ground and sustained damage on account of the unevenness of the river bed at that place. The plaintiffs brought this action for breach of contract. HELD: There was an implied term in the contract that the defendants would take reasonable care to see that the berth was safe as both parties must have known at the time of the agreement that if the ground were not safe the ship would be endangered when the tide ebbed. There was a breach of this implied term.
Answer
?

Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
FACTS: There was a contract between the defendants, who owned a Thames-side wharf and jetty, and the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs' vessel, The Moorcock, should be unloaded and reloaded at the defendants' wharf. The Moorcock was, accordingly, moored alongside the wharf but, as the tide fell, she took to the ground and sustained damage on account of the unevenness of the river bed at that place. The plaintiffs brought this action for breach of contract. HELD: There was an implied term in the contract that the defendants would take reasonable care to see that the berth was safe as both parties must have known at the time of the agreement that if the ground were not safe the ship would be endangered when the tide ebbed. There was a breach of this implied term.
Answer
The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64 FACTS: There was a contract between the defendants, who owned a Thames-side wharf and jetty, and the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs' vessel, The Moorcock, should be unloaded and relo

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.