Balfour v Balfour: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "In which Lord Atkin himself — yea, he of {{casenote|Donoghue|Stephenson}} — entirely gets wrong the basic tenets about the formation of a {{t|contract}}. If I may be so bo...")
 
m (Amwelladmin moved page Balfour v Balfour - Case Note to Balfour v Balfour)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
In which Lord Atkin himself — yea, he of {{casenote|Donoghue|Stephenson}} — entirely gets wrong the basic tenets about the formation of a {{t|contract}}. If I may be so bold.  
{{cn}}In which Lord Atkin himself — yea, he of {{casenote|Donoghue|Stevenson}} — entirely gets wrong the basic tenets about the formation of a {{t|contract}}. If I may be so bold.  
{{Seealso}}
{{Seealso}}
*[[Intention to create legal relations]]
*[[Intention to create legal relations]]

Latest revision as of 19:03, 19 December 2020

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
JCLR.png
A shelf in the JC’s law library yesterday
Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman

Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort |

Click ᐅ to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

In which Lord Atkin himself — yea, he of Donoghue v Stevenson — entirely gets wrong the basic tenets about the formation of a contract. If I may be so bold.

See also