Manifest error: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|boilerplate|}}“[[manifest error]]” was in {{casenote|IIG Capital llc|Van der Merwe}}<ref>[2007] EWHC 435 para 52</ref> as one which is “obvious or easily demonstrable without extensive investigation” even if not readily apparent at the time that the certificate was provided. | {{a|boilerplate|}}“[[manifest error]]” was in {{casenote|IIG Capital llc|Van der Merwe}}<ref>[2007] EWHC 435 para 52</ref> as one which is “obvious or easily demonstrable without extensive investigation” even if not readily apparent at the time that the certificate was provided. A rather practical judge — this is more than faint praise; not all judges are — observed in {{cite|Amey Birmingham Highways Ltd|Birmingham City Council|2018|EWCA(Civ)|264}} that a contract detailing an ongoing relationship lasting years — in this case a PFI contract, but we humbly submit, a [[master trading agreement]] is of this character as well — “is likely to be of massive length, containing many infelicities and oddities. Both parties should adopt a reasonable approach in accordance with what is obviously the long-term purpose of the contract. They should not be latching onto the infelicities and oddities, in order to disrupt the project and maximise their own gain.” | ||
In {{casenote|North Shore Ventures Ltd|Anstead Holdings Inc}} the court said: | In {{casenote|North Shore Ventures Ltd|Anstead Holdings Inc}} the court said: | ||
Latest revision as of 16:48, 13 July 2020
|
Boilerplate Anatomy™
|
“manifest error” was in IIG Capital llc v Van der Merwe[1] as one which is “obvious or easily demonstrable without extensive investigation” even if not readily apparent at the time that the certificate was provided. A rather practical judge — this is more than faint praise; not all judges are — observed in Amey Birmingham Highways Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2018] EWCA(Civ) 264 that a contract detailing an ongoing relationship lasting years — in this case a PFI contract, but we humbly submit, a master trading agreement is of this character as well — “is likely to be of massive length, containing many infelicities and oddities. Both parties should adopt a reasonable approach in accordance with what is obviously the long-term purpose of the contract. They should not be latching onto the infelicities and oddities, in order to disrupt the project and maximise their own gain.”
In North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc the court said:
- “it is quite possible for one person to certify the existence of some fact at a particular moment in time which the other person, the recipient of the certificate, cannot verify save after the occurrence of a subsequent event”.
See also
References
- ↑ [2007] EWHC 435 para 52