Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd: Difference between revisions

m
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{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).
{{cn}}{{cite|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.
{{sa}}
*[[Penalty clause]]
*{{casenote|ParkingEye Ltd|Beavis}}
*{{casenote|Cavendish Square Holdings|El Makdessi}}