is no restraint of trade. The Court found that there was no inequality of bargaining power between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff was a novice manager and the Defendants had some industry experience. Undue Influence One of the issues raised by the Defendants was that the 2nd Agreements were voidable for undue influence. In doing so‚ the Defendants alleged that there existed a relationship of confidence between manager and artist‚ in which the Plaintiff “occupied a position
Premium Contract law Appeal Legal terms
The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage. Held (Court of Exchequer): The trial court found that the defendant was ignorant of the abandoned mine shaft and free of negligence and decided the case in favor of the defendant. Held (Court of Exchequer Chamber): The defendant were
Premium Defendant Plaintiff Legal terms
their lives in boating accident. Mr. Watters‚ defendant and the owner of the resort‚ brought an action against the verdict for revised decision because the trial court found him guilty. The case came in front of the court on action of defendants for decision against the verdict‚ for fresh trial pursuant based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s Rule 59‚ and for revised decision. The judges revisited a ruling on 28th September 1988‚ against defendants‚ as a result of the injuries which took place
Premium Plaintiff Court Jury
damages. -versus- Spouses : Dingdong Dante and Marian Dante Defendants. x-----------------------------------------------------------x MEMORANDUM Defendant‚ thru Counsel and unto this Honorable Court‚ respectfully submits this memorandum. I. Facts of the Case 1. On August 16‚2013 Mr. Fernando Po thru his Counsel‚ Atty.Sonia S. Quiero filed Case No. 06 for Unlawful Detainer with damages against the defendants‚ spouses‚ Dingdong Dante and Marian Dante. 2. The plaintiff alleged
Premium Pleading Plaintiff Defendant
Maria and Hubert Trelinski (The Defendants)‚ her daughter and son-in-law. In exchange‚ the defendants promised the plaintiff could live with them‚ with the provision of food and care. Eventually‚ the defendants stopped providing her with food and asked the plaintiff to leave the house. When the case was brought forward in court‚ there was uncertainty with regards to the validity of the agreement. The judge then concluded that the agreement was enforceable. The defendants thus acknowledged the contract
Premium Defendant Contract Plaintiff
In the Court of Joint District‚ 2nd Court‚ Dhaka Suit No……../2014 Faizuddin Son Of: Hazi Abdul Aziz Village:Amin Bazar P.S: Savar District-Dhaka
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Defendant
cashier accepted the consumer’s offer. 2) Tenders Spencer v Harding (1870) In this case‚ the defendants advertised a sale by tender of the stock in trade belonging Eilbeck & Co. The advertisement specified where the goods could be viewed‚ the time of opening for tenders and that the goods must be paid for in cash. No reserve was stated. The claimant submitted the highest tender but the defendant refused to sell to him. The court held that unless the advertisement specifies that the highest tender
Premium Plaintiff Auction Advertising
of Indiana. This is court case number 82A04-8876-CB285‚ White vs. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. The lawyers in this case are Benjamin Walton‚ xxxxx Van Meter who represent the defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern and Jackson Welch‚ Amanda Babot who represent the plaintiff Debbie White. The defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern are seeking a summary judgment which is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously resolve a case without a trail
Premium Plaintiff Judgment Civil procedure
only had 5‚000 available seats on the 50 yard line. The Highlanders announced that 5‚000 of the 10‚000 would get the preferred seating based on a lottery‚ and the remaining 5‚000 would be given other seats. Issue: The plaintiffs are suing the defendant to reimburse a $10‚000 fee which guaranteed a specific seat in the new stadium. Due to reduced dimensions‚ the New York Highlanders Inc. would give the plaintiffs different seats Application: Referring to the case of Yocca v. Pittsburg Steelers
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Complaint
CASE 1 of 5 Donnelly v. Rees 141 Cal. 56‚ Cal. 1903. November 6‚ 1903 FACTS: An action may be maintained by the sole heir of a deceased person to set aside a deed procured from the deceased without consideration by the fraudulent practices of the defendants and their undue influence over the deceased‚ who was known to be an habitual drunkard for more than five years before the execution of the deed‚ to anextent seriously to impair his mind‚ and who was so intoxicated at the time as to render him unfit
Premium Plaintiff Complaint Judgment