Search for: "Britton v. Britton"
Results 41 - 60
of 160
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2016, 10:00 am
Related Blog Posts Texas Court Holds that, for Statute of Limitations Purposes, Car Accident Litigant is Bound by “On or About” Date Alleged in Complaint – Britton v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 10:00 am
Related Blog Posts Texas Court Holds that, for Statute of Limitations Purposes, Car Accident Litigant is Bound by “On or About” Date Alleged in Complaint – Britton v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 10:00 am
Related Blog Posts Texas Court Holds that, for Statute of Limitations Purposes, Car Accident Litigant is Bound by “On or About” Date Alleged in Complaint – Britton v. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 5:00 am
In the UIM stacking case of Toner v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 9:39 am
Britton is available at: Link […]Mickey J. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 5:00 am
Summary judgment was recently entered in favor of a carrier in a declaratory judgment action of Erie Insurance Exchange v. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 7:13 am
The Facts of the Case In the recent case of Britton v. [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 10:30 am
BRITTON, or their Successors, as TRUSTEES OF THE BRITTON JOINT TRUST, Plaintiffs, Counterclaim Defendants and Appellees, v. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 8:58 am
Britton [read post]
5 Mar 2016, 2:06 pm
The Court held, after an excursus on contractual interpretation after Arnold v Britton, and on the findings in Lambeth v Thomas and Rochdale v Dixon, that this was not an agency agreement and that Southwark were indeed ‘the customer’. [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 1:03 pm
Britton v. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 5:21 am
Britton Greene, William S. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 10:03 am
The Court’s reluctance last year to interfere with parties’ freedom of contract is also apparent in the contractual interpretation case of Arnold v Britton & Ors [2015] UKSC 36 (Case Comment here). [read post]
1 Jan 2016, 1:13 pm
A very belated (and brief) note on Arnold v Britton & Ors [2015] UKSC 36, as I have just realised we didn’t cover it. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 3:22 pm
Comment The UT here seems to have reached a resolution – at least for itself – of Sella, Assethold, Francis and Arnold v Britton. [read post]
18 Dec 2015, 9:11 am
Following on from the Case Preview (here), the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Arnold v Britton & Ors on 10 June 2015 in which the appellants’ appeal was dismissed by a majority of 4-1. [read post]
5 Dec 2015, 10:34 am
Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36; Philips v Francis [2014] EWCA Civ 1395; and, Assethold Ltd v Watts [2014] UKUT 537 (LC). [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 2:24 am
This in our view would be more consistent with the approach the Supreme Court has recently taken in the area of contractual construction (for example, in the case earlier this year of Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, where the Supreme Court held that where the words of a contract are clear, those words will be upheld even if the result appears to be contrary to commercial common sense). [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 5:59 am
The Supreme Court in Arnold v Britton declined to bend the usual rules of construction in favour of the tenants of holiday chalets let on long leases. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 2:20 am
On appeal from: [2013] EWCA Civ 902 The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a majority of 4-1 in the case concerning the true interpretation of 5 versions of a clause which has been described as a service charge clause in the long lease agreement of 25 chalets in the respondent’s leisure park. [read post]
