83,229
edits
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd: Difference between revisions
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (view source)
Revision as of 10:24, 18 April 2018
, 18 April 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{casenote|Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd|New Garage & Motor Co Ltd}} | {{casenote|Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd|New Garage & Motor Co Ltd}} (1915) AC 79, is a leading case on [[penalty clauses]] (bad) and [[liquidated damages]] clauses (good). | ||
Lord Dunedin had suggested the following often quoted factors: | Lord Dunedin had suggested the following often quoted factors: | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Glossed over more recently by {{casenote|ParkingEye Ltd|Beavis}} and {{casenote|Cavendish Square Holdings|El Makdessi}}, which seem better fit for the kinder, gentler world we now inhabit. | Glossed over more recently by {{casenote|ParkingEye Ltd|Beavis}} and {{casenote|Cavendish Square Holdings|El Makdessi}}, which seem better fit for the kinder, gentler world we now inhabit. | ||
{{seealso}} | |||
*[[Penalty clause]] | |||
*{{casenote|ParkingEye Ltd|Beavis}} | |||
*{{casenote|Cavendish Square Holdings|El Makdessi}} | |||