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.


  • Presentation
  • Question
  • Answer

Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
It remains unclear what will constitute a legitimate interest. However, in one of the more recent authorities that discuss this criterion, Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (The Dynamic) [2003] EWHC 1936 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 693, Simon J said that it will only be in extreme cases that the innocent party will not have a legitimate interest in affirmation. He stated:
(i) The burden is on the contract breaker to show that the innocent party has no legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages.
(ii) This burden is not discharged merely [...].
(iii) The exception to the general rule applies only in extreme cases where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to keep the contract alive would be unreasonable.
Answer
by showing that the benefit to the other party is small in comparison to the loss to the contract breaker

Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
It remains unclear what will constitute a legitimate interest. However, in one of the more recent authorities that discuss this criterion, Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (The Dynamic) [2003] EWHC 1936 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 693, Simon J said that it will only be in extreme cases that the innocent party will not have a legitimate interest in affirmation. He stated:
(i) The burden is on the contract breaker to show that the innocent party has no legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages.
(ii) This burden is not discharged merely [...].
(iii) The exception to the general rule applies only in extreme cases where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to keep the contract alive would be unreasonable.
Answer
?

Tags
#contract #discharge #law
Question
It remains unclear what will constitute a legitimate interest. However, in one of the more recent authorities that discuss this criterion, Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd v Koch Carbon Inc (The Dynamic) [2003] EWHC 1936 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 693, Simon J said that it will only be in extreme cases that the innocent party will not have a legitimate interest in affirmation. He stated:
(i) The burden is on the contract breaker to show that the innocent party has no legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages.
(ii) This burden is not discharged merely [...].
(iii) The exception to the general rule applies only in extreme cases where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to keep the contract alive would be unreasonable.
Answer
by showing that the benefit to the other party is small in comparison to the loss to the contract breaker
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
erest in affirmation. He stated: (i) The burden is on the contract breaker to show that the innocent party has no legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages. (ii) This burden is not discharged merely <span>by showing that the benefit to the other party is small in comparison to the loss to the contract breaker. (iii) The exception to the general rule applies only in extreme cases where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to keep the contract alive would be unreasona

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.