Why'd a claimant be allowed to recover deposit if it acts in bad faith, when a contract obligated good faith and reasonable endeavour? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30 pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Contract tied to a non-refundable deposit if I don't signIf the defendant declines the plaintiff's counsel's request to give evidence, then how did the latter err?Can contract have a clause that changes the contractDoes intent affect whether or not repudiation or fundamental breach has occurred?Legal Extent of Non-Solicitation Obligation StatementIs it a breach of contract if there are loopholes in the contract?Contract: one party changes the terms after the other has become dependent on dealHow can laypeople investigate an airline's allegation of 'extraordinary circumstances'?London: how to deal with a landlord not protecting a deposit and not rembursing it?How does principle that written contract is proof of a contract and not the contract?
Multi tool use
What does こした mean?
Protagonist's race is hidden - should I reveal it?
RIP Packet Format
Variable does not exist: sObjectType (Task.sObjectType)
What is a 'Key' in computer science?
Philosophers who were composers?
Is there an efficient way for synchronising audio events real-time with LEDs using an MCU?
Coin Game with infinite paradox
Why did Europeans not widely domesticate foxes?
What is the purpose of the side handle on a hand ("eggbeater") drill?
What is ls Largest Number Formed by only moving two sticks in 508?
`FindRoot [ ]`::jsing: Encountered a singular Jacobian at a point...WHY
In search of the origins of term censor, I hit a dead end stuck with the greek term, to censor, λογοκρίνω
Is it accepted to use working hours to read general interest books?
How was Lagrange appointed professor of mathematics so early?
What were wait-states, and why was it only an issue for PCs?
"Working on a knee"
How to begin with a paragraph in latex
Will I lose my paid in full property
Was Objective-C really a hindrance to Apple software development?
What to do with someone that cheated their way though university and a PhD program?
Why did Israel vote against lifting the American embargo on Cuba?
Retract an already submitted Recommendation Letter (written for an undergrad student)
What's called a person who works as someone who puts products on shelves in stores?
Why'd a claimant be allowed to recover deposit if it acts in bad faith, when a contract obligated good faith and reasonable endeavour?
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30 pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Contract tied to a non-refundable deposit if I don't signIf the defendant declines the plaintiff's counsel's request to give evidence, then how did the latter err?Can contract have a clause that changes the contractDoes intent affect whether or not repudiation or fundamental breach has occurred?Legal Extent of Non-Solicitation Obligation StatementIs it a breach of contract if there are loopholes in the contract?Contract: one party changes the terms after the other has become dependent on dealHow can laypeople investigate an airline's allegation of 'extraordinary circumstances'?London: how to deal with a landlord not protecting a deposit and not rembursing it?How does principle that written contract is proof of a contract and not the contract?
O'Sullivan & Hilliard's The Law of Contract (Core Texts Series) (2018 8 ed). p. 83
4.29 A similar issue arose in a slightly different way in Shaker v Vistajet Group Holding SA
(2012). There, the claimant paid a deposit in respect of the purchase of an aircraft from
the defendant under the terms of a letter agreed by the two parties. The letter expressly
provided that the claimant agreed to proceed in good faith and to use reasonable endeavours to agree the formal sale contract and associated documents. The formal contract
could not be agreed, so the claimant sought repayment of the deposit, but the defendant
refused, contending that the claimant had not complied with its [1.] good faith and [2.] reasonable endeavour obligations. Teare J accepted that the intention of the agreement was that
the deposit could only be recovered if these obligations had been complied with, but
held that the obligations were unenforceable because of the impossibility of ‘polic[ing]’ them, that is, of working out whether they had been breached or not. It distinguished
p. 84
the Petromec decision on the basis that there were objective criteria available in that
case to assist the court in determining whether the obligation had been breached. It is
respectfully suggested that Teare J may have been too ready to find that the obligations
were unenforceable, as this [unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations] would have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit even if
it had acted in bad faith** (which on the facts it did not). There are many types of conduct
that everyone would agree constitute bad faith, so if the conduct fell into this category,
there would be no practical impediment to the court policing the obligation.
As the contract had the two obligations that I numbered on p. 43, I don't understand the emboldened sentence.
If the claimant acted in bad faith, then wouldn't it breach [1.]? If it did, then why would the unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations "have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit"?
contract-law england-and-wales
asked 4 mins ago
AntinatalistAntinatalist
1395
New contributor
Antinatalist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
O'Sullivan & Hilliard's The Law of Contract (Core Texts Series) (2018 8 ed). p. 83
4.29 A similar issue arose in a slightly different way in Shaker v Vistajet Group Holding SA
(2012). There, the claimant paid a deposit in respect of the purchase of an aircraft from
the defendant under the terms of a letter agreed by the two parties. The letter expressly
provided that the claimant agreed to proceed in good faith and to use reasonable endeavours to agree the formal sale contract and associated documents. The formal contract
could not be agreed, so the claimant sought repayment of the deposit, but the defendant
refused, contending that the claimant had not complied with its [1.] good faith and [2.] reasonable endeavour obligations. Teare J accepted that the intention of the agreement was that
the deposit could only be recovered if these obligations had been complied with, but
held that the obligations were unenforceable because of the impossibility of ‘polic[ing]’ them, that is, of working out whether they had been breached or not. It distinguished
p. 84
the Petromec decision on the basis that there were objective criteria available in that
case to assist the court in determining whether the obligation had been breached. It is
respectfully suggested that Teare J may have been too ready to find that the obligations
were unenforceable, as this [unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations] would have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit even if
it had acted in bad faith** (which on the facts it did not). There are many types of conduct
that everyone would agree constitute bad faith, so if the conduct fell into this category,
there would be no practical impediment to the court policing the obligation.
As the contract had the two obligations that I numbered on p. 43, I don't understand the emboldened sentence.
If the claimant acted in bad faith, then wouldn't it breach [1.]? If it did, then why would the unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations "have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit"?
contract-law england-and-wales
asked 4 mins ago
AntinatalistAntinatalist
1395
New contributor
Antinatalist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
O'Sullivan & Hilliard's The Law of Contract (Core Texts Series) (2018 8 ed). p. 83
4.29 A similar issue arose in a slightly different way in Shaker v Vistajet Group Holding SA
(2012). There, the claimant paid a deposit in respect of the purchase of an aircraft from
the defendant under the terms of a letter agreed by the two parties. The letter expressly
provided that the claimant agreed to proceed in good faith and to use reasonable endeavours to agree the formal sale contract and associated documents. The formal contract
could not be agreed, so the claimant sought repayment of the deposit, but the defendant
refused, contending that the claimant had not complied with its [1.] good faith and [2.] reasonable endeavour obligations. Teare J accepted that the intention of the agreement was that
the deposit could only be recovered if these obligations had been complied with, but
held that the obligations were unenforceable because of the impossibility of ‘polic[ing]’ them, that is, of working out whether they had been breached or not. It distinguished
p. 84
the Petromec decision on the basis that there were objective criteria available in that
case to assist the court in determining whether the obligation had been breached. It is
respectfully suggested that Teare J may have been too ready to find that the obligations
were unenforceable, as this [unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations] would have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit even if
it had acted in bad faith** (which on the facts it did not). There are many types of conduct
that everyone would agree constitute bad faith, so if the conduct fell into this category,
there would be no practical impediment to the court policing the obligation.
As the contract had the two obligations that I numbered on p. 43, I don't understand the emboldened sentence.
If the claimant acted in bad faith, then wouldn't it breach [1.]? If it did, then why would the unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations "have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit"?
contract-law england-and-wales
asked 4 mins ago
AntinatalistAntinatalist
1395
New contributor
Antinatalist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
O'Sullivan & Hilliard's The Law of Contract (Core Texts Series) (2018 8 ed). p. 83
4.29 A similar issue arose in a slightly different way in Shaker v Vistajet Group Holding SA
(2012). There, the claimant paid a deposit in respect of the purchase of an aircraft from
the defendant under the terms of a letter agreed by the two parties. The letter expressly
provided that the claimant agreed to proceed in good faith and to use reasonable endeavours to agree the formal sale contract and associated documents. The formal contract
could not be agreed, so the claimant sought repayment of the deposit, but the defendant
refused, contending that the claimant had not complied with its [1.] good faith and [2.] reasonable endeavour obligations. Teare J accepted that the intention of the agreement was that
the deposit could only be recovered if these obligations had been complied with, but
held that the obligations were unenforceable because of the impossibility of ‘polic[ing]’ them, that is, of working out whether they had been breached or not. It distinguished
p. 84
the Petromec decision on the basis that there were objective criteria available in that
case to assist the court in determining whether the obligation had been breached. It is
respectfully suggested that Teare J may have been too ready to find that the obligations
were unenforceable, as this [unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations] would have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit even if
it had acted in bad faith** (which on the facts it did not). There are many types of conduct
that everyone would agree constitute bad faith, so if the conduct fell into this category,
there would be no practical impediment to the court policing the obligation.
As the contract had the two obligations that I numbered on p. 43, I don't understand the emboldened sentence.
If the claimant acted in bad faith, then wouldn't it breach [1.]? If it did, then why would the unenforceability of reasonable endeavour obligations "have allowed the claimant to recover its deposit"?
contract-law england-and-wales
contract-law england-and-wales
asked 4 mins ago
AntinatalistAntinatalist
1395
New contributor
Antinatalist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 mins ago
AntinatalistAntinatalist
1395
New contributor
Antinatalist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 mins ago
AntinatalistAntinatalist
1395
New contributor
Antinatalist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 mins ago
AntinatalistAntinatalist
1395
asked 4 mins ago
AntinatalistAntinatalist
1395
1395
New contributor
Antinatalist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Antinatalist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Antinatalist is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Antinatalist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40396%2fwhyd-a-claimant-be-allowed-to-recover-deposit-if-it-acts-in-bad-faith-when-a-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Antinatalist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Antinatalist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Antinatalist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Antinatalist is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40396%2fwhyd-a-claimant-be-allowed-to-recover-deposit-if-it-acts-in-bad-faith-when-a-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5Mt2 T9oJ5HDWhlKC1LRdcCtDglJgKg3Z,u,9nI5u2EVSL7qtlSUPwen3,bEtF,3tQYJvr7Zq9 k97rpaG,UtO5AayGzgyf5c1ixjjy
