Remember, all contracts are voidable right up until the end.
|
|
Contracts with children, including retainer agreements with attorneys, generally are voidable.
|
|
They cannot easily retain an attorney, because contracts with children, including retainer agreements, usually are voidable.
|
|
Yet like consent by a minor under contract law, legal assent would be voidable by the minor.
|
|
Introduce the idea of voidable assent and behavior like Moore's apparent seduction of teenage girls becomes much less likely.
|
|
Under Delaware law, the most influential state for corporations, a contract or transaction involving a conflict of interest is not voidable solely because of the financial interest of a director.
|
|
The assumption behind most of these voidable contracts is that parents would agree to the vast majority of the purchases — and companies will take a risk in the few cases where that assumption is wrong.
|
|
The deal also has a no-trade clause, but the final three seasons are voidable, meaning the Saints and Brees, who turns 278 in January, will have to revisit the possibility of another extension next year.
|
|
"This loan cost Mr. Depp millions of dollars in unreasonable interest, fees, and voidable contingent fees, and was imposed on Mr. Depp without any of the protections that should have been afforded to a client when dealing with his attorney," the documents state.
|
|
"While it's true that the penalty for violation of the statute is just to withhold salary or other financial remuneration from the wrongfully appointed employee, there's also the possibility that any action taken by such a wrongfully appointed employee could be subject to legal challenge and potentially even be voidable," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.
|
|
Until 1975, some marriages in Australia were voidable under Australian family law. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth.) abolished the concept of a voidable marriage.
|
|
Voidable, in law, is a transaction or action that is valid but may be annulled by one of the parties to the transaction. Voidable is usually used in distinction to void ab initio (or void from the outset) and unenforceable.
|
|
When a contract is entered into without the free consent of the party, it is considered a voidable contract. The definition of the act states that a voidable contract is enforceable by law at the option of one or more parties but not at option of the other parties. A voidable contract may be considered valid if it is not cancelled by the aggrieved party within a reasonable time.
|
|
2 Factors Act 1889, ss. 21, 24, 25 SGA 1979. ;Seller has voidable title: where the seller holds voidable title, title can pass to a buyer in good faith. If title is voided before the contract of sale is concluded, title cannot pass.s23.
|
|
R v McCredie [2000] 2 BCLC 438 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.
|
|
Re Agriplant Services Ltd [1997] 2 BCLC 598 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable preferences under s 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986. It is an example of what will be considered an unlawful and voidable preference when a company is close to insolvency.
|
|
Harrigin, Flora. "When is marriage not a marriage?", The Review, issue 162, January/February 2013 The validity of a voidable marriage can only be made by one of the parties to the marriage; thus, a voidable marriage cannot be annulled after the death of one of the parties.
|
|
Re Shoe Lace Ltd [1994] 1 BCLC 111 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.
|
|
Re Conegrade Ltd or Saxton v Clarke [2002] EWHC 2411 (Ch) is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions.
|
|
The concept of "voidable marriage" arose from the early ecclesiastical courts which had jurisdiction to determine what constituted a valid marriage. Some of the recognized impediments were subsumed into the civil courts which had jurisdiction over the right to and disposition of property.Goad, Paul J., "The Historical Evolution of the Concepts of Void and Voidable Marriages", 7 J. Fam. L. 297 Common reasons that would make a marriage voidable include those that indicate either party to the marriage did not validly consent, such as duress, mistake, intoxication, or mental defect.
|
|
The frequent combination "null and void" is a legal doublet. The term is frequently used in contradistinction to the term "voidable" and "unenforceable".
|
|
New York law provides for: Incestuous and void marriages (DRL §5); Void marriages (DRL §6) Voidable marriages (DRL §7). The cause of action for annulment of a voidable marriage in New York State is generally fraud (DRL §140 (e)). There are other arguments. Fraud generally means the intentional deception of the Plaintiff by the Defendant in order to induce the Plaintiff to marry.
|
|
Re Parkes Garage (Swadlincote) Ltd [1929] 1 Ch 139 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning a voidable floating charge for past value.
|
|
Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth.) an annulment can now only be granted if a marriage is void. This Act abolished prospectively voidable marriages.
|
|
A voidable contract, unlike a void contract, is a valid contract which may be either affirmed or rejected at the option of one of the parties. At most, one party to the contract is bound. The unbound party may repudiate (reject) the contract, at which time the contract becomes void. Typical grounds for a contract being voidable include coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud.
|
|
"Early American courts accepted the distinction between canonical and civil disabilities as the rationale for void (civilly disabled) and voidable (canonically disabled) marriages."Goad, Paul J., "The Historical Evolution of the Concepts of Void and Voidable Marriages", 7 J. Fam. L. 297 Colonial courts followed the Common Law view in looking to the capacity of the parties to enter into a legally binding contract.
|
|
The Family Relations Code of the White Earth Nation (part of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe) defines only marriages which are voidable. Those include per section 3.1.a bigamous marriages, those entered into by minors, and those prohibited by degrees of consanguinity. Under section 3.2, a marriage could be declared voidable if the party lacked capacity to consent, consummate the marriage, or was under age at the time it was entered into.
|
|
Black's Law Dictionary defines "void" as:"Void." Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition. which means there is no legal obligation therefore there will be no breach of contract since the contract is null. The dictionary further goes on to define void ab initio as: In practical terms, void is usually used in contradistinction to "voidable" and "unenforceable", the principal difference being that an action which is voidable remains valid until it is avoided.
|
|
Crompton J held that the contract could not be rescinded, since the shares were now worthless. He said where someone wants to exercise the voidable option, Erle J and Lord Campbell CJ concurred.
|
|
24, ibid. Coke interprets this as though its only effect was to make the excessive gift voidable by the donor's heir. It certainly could not be voided by the donor's lord.Charter, 1217, c.
|
|
A voidable marriage (also called an avoidable marriage) is a marriage that can be canceled at the option of one of the parties through annulment. The marriage is valid but is subject to cancellation if contested in court by one of the parties to the marriage. A voidable marriage is contrasted with a void marriage, which is one that is on its face unlawful and therefore legally has no effect, whether or not one of the parties challenges the marriage.
|
|
A marriage may be nullified as void or voidable much in the same manner as a contract. A marriage is void when the parties do not have the capacity to marry (known as the essential validity of the marriage). Thus, marriages between blood relations, or parties already married, underage, or otherwise unable to consent would all be invalid for lack of essential validity. A marriage is voidable and can be annulled by a court if the spouses are incapable of consummating the marriage.
|
|
The principal difference between a void and voidable marriage is that, as a void marriage is invalid from the beginning, no legal action is required to set the marriage aside. A marriage may be challenged as void by a third party, for example in probate proceedings during which a party to the void marriage is claiming inheritance rights as a spouse. In contrast, a voidable marriage may be ended only through the judgment of a court, and may be voided only upon the petition of one of the parties to the marriage or, if a party is under a legal disability, by a third party representative such as a parent or legal guardian. The legal distinction between void and voidable marriages can be significant in relation to forced marriage.
|
|
The Court of Appeals reversed, 5-1 in an opinion by Judge Haight, holding that even if the marriage was not voidable under the New Jersey statute, the contacts to New York (both parties were New York domiciliaries at all relevant times) and public policy of New York counseled the application of New York law, under which it was voidable. The court does suggest that the marriage was voidable under the New Jersey statute, though a January 1913 article in the Harvard Law Review questions this. Judge Werner dissented, arguing that the law in New York for analyzing the validity of a marriage contract was to look at the lex loci contractus—the law where the contract was made—and that in the absence of explicit legislative authorization the court should not be annulling a valid New Jersey marriage.
|
|
Depending upon the jurisdiction, reasons for why a marriage may be legally void may include consanguinity (incestual marriage), bigamy, group marriage, or child marriage. A voidable marriage is a marriage that can be canceled at the option of one of the parties. The marriage is valid, may be annulled if contested in court by one of the parties to the marriage. The petition to void the marriage must be brought by one of the parties to the marriage, and a voidable marriage thus cannot be annulled after the death of one of the parties.
|
|
A marriage may be voidable for a variety of reasons, depending on jurisdiction. Common reasons for allowing a party to void a marriage include entry into the marriage as a result of threat or coercion. Some jurisdictions have a distinction between legal age of majority and legal age of marriage, in this case, it is usually the custom that the marriage can proceed with parental or guardian consent, and the marital parties being able to ratify or void the marriage upon reaching the age of majority. These are also considered voidable marriages.
|
|
However, the right to avoid a voidable transaction can be lost (usually lost by delay). These are sometimes referred to as "bars to rescission". Such considerations do not apply to matters affected by absolute nullity, or void ab initio.
|
|
Lloyds foreclosed on the house when the money was not paid and Mr. Bundy had a heart attack in the witness box. The question was whether the contract leading to the repossession of the house was voidable for some iniquitous pressure.
|
|
Void marriages are distinct from those marriages that can be canceled at the option of one of the parties, but otherwise remain valid. Such a marriage is voidable, meaning that it is subject to cancellation through annulment if contested in court.
|
|
If the contract of sale to Blenkarn was held to be voidable for fraud, then Lindsay & Co would only have recourse against the insolvent Blenkarn. However, if (as was held) the contract of sale was void ab initio, then the title did not pass from Lindsay to Blenkarn in the first place, and Lindsay could claim back the handkerchiefs from Cundy as their property. Cundy was left with only a claim against the insolvent Blenkarn. In every case, third parties involved with bad faith in void or voidable contracts not only are affected by nullity, but may also be liable for statutory damages.
|
|
A nullity order is one which annuls a void or voidable civil partnership. Section 49 of the Act provides that a civil partnership is void on grounds of ineligibility to register, if the parties: disregarded certain requirements as to the formation of the partnership, where any party is a minor, where any person whose consent is required (e.g. a parent) has forbidden the formation of the partnership and the court has not given its consent. Where a civil partnership is voidable, applications for nullity orders are subject to the bars of time, knowledge of defect and approbation.
|
|
Prime Minister David Cameron accompanied by Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt and Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone visited the Forced Marriage Unit, 8 June 2012 to meet with campaigners Aneeta Prem, Jasvinder Sanghera and Diana Nammi to discuss the new legislation and the range of measures that will be introduced to increase support and protection for victims. Depending by jurisdiction, a forced marriage may or may not be void or voidable. Victims may be able to seek redress through annulment or divorce. In England and Wales, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 stipulates that a forced marriage is voidable.
|
|
A mutual mistake occurs when the parties to a contract are both mistaken about the same material fact within their contract. They are at cross-purposes. There is a meeting of the minds, but the parties are mistaken. Hence the contract is voidable.
|
|
A third party may still find that a contract is voidable (though not void, meaning that equitable bars to rescission of agreements operate) if it was clear that the person they dealt with was conducting themselves beyond the scope of their authority.
|
|
That would mean that in all cases of mistake to identity, contracts would be voidable, rather than immediately void. Therefore, if the original seller did not repudiate the contract before the goods have been sold on, the third party would be protected.
|
|
Oliver J held that "intention to defraud" in the voidable preference section (now Insolvency Act 1986, section 239) did not cover a case where a debtor merely knew or had grounds to think he had no sufficient funds to pay creditors in full.
|
|
These documents ought to be cancelled. Chapter V provides relief from such kinds of documents. Also, there is a category of contracts which, for some reason or the other (e.g. lack of free consent) can be deemed voidable by the party which consent was not free.
|
|
Re Sarflax Ltd [1979] Ch 592; [1979] 1 All E.R. 529 is a UK insolvency law case concerning voidable preferences and fraudulent trading, now in the Insolvency Act 1986. It concerns the definition of "intention to defraud", which is found in a number of legal provisions.
|
|
There can be four different ways in which contracts can be set aside. A contract may be deemed 'void', 'voidable', 'unenforceable' or 'ineffective'. Voidness implies that a contract never came into existence. Voidability implies that one or both parties may declare a contract ineffective at their wish.
|
|
In some courts, violations of the stay are treated as void ab initio as a matter of law, although the court may annul the stay to give effect to otherwise void acts. Other courts treat violations as voidable (not necessarily void ab initio).Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc.
|
|
IA 1986 s 238 (transactions at an undervalue) and IA 1986 s 127 (post-winding up transactions. The freedom to contract for any security interestNational Provincial Bank v Charnley [1924] 1 KB 431 is also restricted, as a company's attempt to give an undue preference to one creditor over another, particularly a floating charge for no new money, or any charge that is not registered, can be unwound.IA 1986 s 239 (voidable preference), IA 1986 s 245 (voidable floating charge), and Companies Act 2006, s 890 (charges void without registration) Since the Cork Report's emphasis on increasing director accountability, practitioners may sue directors by summary procedure for breach of duties, especially negligence or conflicts of interest.
|
|
Hoffmann J held that the debenture was voidable, because no businessman would hold this to have been at the same time. Ralph Gibson LJ, Nolan LJ and Sir Christopher Slade upheld Hoffmann J that a delay of any substantial length (more than a coffee break) would be fatal to the exception.
|
|
The UK Supreme Court found that both transactions were valid. If a trustee had acted in breach of duty, but within its powers, then a transaction was voidable. However, on the facts, the trustees seeking advice had fulfilled their duty (and so the advisers could be liable for negligence instead).
|
|
Only student loans and other contracts made specifically enforceable by statute will be binding on infants in that province. In contracts between an adult and an infant, adults are bound but infants may escape contracts at their option (i.e. the contract is voidable). Infants may ratify a contract on reaching age of majority.
|
|
Generally speaking, one party will have the right to elect whether to annul the transaction or to affirm it. The avoiding of a voidable transaction amounts to the rescinding it or exercising a power of rescission and as such, it is subject to the general law in that regard. The right to rescind can be lost. In common law, there are generally said to be four "bars" to rescission, any one of which will cause the agreement to no longer be considered voidable: # delay In English law, see Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 # affirmation (or ratification)In English law, see Long v Lloyd [1958] 1 WLR 753 # restitutio in integrum being impossibleIt is impossible to put the parties back in their original positions; in English law, see Vigers v Pike (1842) 8 CI&F; 562 # third party rightsUsually if a third party acquires rights in property, in good faith and for value; in English law, see Phillips v Brooks [1919] 2 KB 243 Although the law varies from country to country, most disputes relating to whether a transaction is void or voidable turn on the ability to transfer title to goods.
|
|
The common law will hold a contract to be binding as long the essential elements for a contract are present (i.e. agreement, consideration, certainty etc.). However, in certain situations equity may intervene and make the contract either voidable or void..... The rule in Yerkey v Jones and the principles of non-est factum, misrepresentation, at p.288-9.... and special disadvantage.. are some of the situations in which equity may intervene and make the contract voidable or void.... To note, a defence to the principle in Yerkey v Jones, is that the "wives guarantee" will not apply if the lender can show that they took reasonable steps to ensure they had reasonable grounds for believing that the consent was fairly obtained.
|
|
Death dissolves a marriage, but the law provides also for dissolution by the high court on some ground which renders the marriage voidable, or following upon an order presuming the death of the one spouse,Clark A50–A52. or on some ground arising after marriage which is recognised as a ground for divorce.Clark A3.
|
|
Re Yeovil Glove Co Ltd [1965] Ch 148 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable floating charges for past value. It holds that a floating charge can harden (or crystallise) when it secures a debt in an overdraft account, when the bank keeps the facility open as a company takes money out and puts money in.
|
|
It also means that the directors are expected to discharge their duties in the best interest of the company's creditors rather than its shareholders; that transactions may be potentially vulnerable as voidable transactions, and that the right of creditors to set-off mutual debts may become impaired in relation to debts which are incurred during the period of insolvency.
|
|
The company went into creditor voluntary liquidation in August 1987 with a deficiency of about £330,000 to unsecured creditors. The liquidator argued the debenture was either a voidable preference or transaction at an undervalue. It also brought a wrongful trading claim against the bank as a shadow director, but that claim was abandoned during the course of trial.
|
|
Accordingly, a transfer of ownership of property can therefore be (1) absolutely good, (2) void or (3) voidable. (1) An absolutely good transfer will give the disponee (or Buyer) an absolutely good title. This means that an Owner with absolutely good title will be immune from challenge of his ownership.Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, Vol 18, Property, Ch 13, para 601.
|
|
On appeal, the House of Lords found that there was no mistake and the contract could not be rescinded nor was it void on mistake. Lord Atkin was writing for the majority. Dissent was written by Warrington and held that the mistaken assumption was fundamental to the contract, and thus the contract is voidable. The Court identified the mistake as a common mistake.
|
|
In many jurisdictions, if a transaction is valid, but voidable, title to good still passes under the transaction, and the recipient may sell them with good title. If the transaction is void, no title passes, and the original seller may reclaim the goods.See for example under English law, Cundy v Lindsay (1878) 3 App Cas 459 (described more fully in void (law)).
|
|
Plucknett, p.24, ibid. This law was undermined in practice by the Chief Justice of the kingdom, Coke, whose courts interpreted the provision as though its only effect was to make the gift voidable by the donor's heirs. Coke held that it could not be voided by the donor's overlord,Charter, 1217, c. 39Coke, 2nd Inst. 65P & M, Vol . 1 p. 332, ibid.
|
|
However, if the holder of the floating charge has inserted new money, then giving the holder a valid security up to the amount of the new money injected does not prejudice the position of the unsecured creditors. Most legislation relating to voidable floating charges is also expressed to apply to charges which, as created, were floating charges but which subsequently crystallised into fixed charges.
|
|
Contracts can sometimes involve defective declarations of will (German: Willensmängel), such as duress, fraud, mistake, or jokes. In such cases, the law contains rules that balance the interests of the declarant, the recipient, and the third party, based partially on their states of mind and whether they acted in good faith. Some acts are voidable, meaning that they are valid until an entitled person rescinds the act.
|
|
Antonin Scalia Less than two months after oral argument, the justices ruled 7-1 for Buckeye. O'Connor had retired and been replaced by Samuel Alito, who as he had not seated for oral argument took no part in the decision. Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. The Florida Supreme Court's distinction between void and voidable contracts was, as Cantero had said, irrelevant under Prima Paint and Southland.
|
|
Lloyd LJ held that an act within a trustee's powers, but done in breach of duty (to take into account relevant matters, and leave out irrelevant matters) was not void, but voidable. Taking and acting on professional advice discharged the duty of care and skill, even if the advice was mistaken. Tax was a relevant matter. This applied to all fiduciaries, including a receiver under MHA 1983.
|
|
In a jurisdiction that classifies forced marriages as void, then the state can cancel the marriage even against the will of the spouses. In contrast, if the law provides that a forced marriage is voidable then, even if it can be proved that the marriage was forced, the state cannot act to end the marriage in the absence of an application by a spouse.
|
|
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. :Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs :3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. :Marriage not void or voidable :4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
|
|
Another breakdown in contract law divides mistakes into four traditional categories: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, mistranscription, and misunderstanding. The law of mistake in any given contract is governed by the law governing the contract. The law from country to country can differ significantly. For instance, contracts entered into under a relevant mistake have not been voidable in English law since Great Peace Shipping v Tsavliris (International) Ltd (2002).
|
|
North Carolina law was subsequently to validate marriages performed by ministers of the Universal Life Church prior to July 3, 1981,Chapter 51 , N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 51-1.1 (2007). and marriages solemnized by a ULC minister after that date are voidable, although equitable estoppel may prevent the parties themselves from challenging the marriage if they have taken the position in a judicial proceeding that the marriage was valid.Duncan v.
|
|
Thus a marriage between minors or to a minor is void. Similarly, a marriage without a valid marriage license (except in certain circumstances) is void. A defect in the essential requisites renders the marriage voidable and thus can be subject to annulment. Irregularities in the formal requisites does not affect the validity of the marriage but renders the parties responsible for such irregularities to be civilly, criminally or administratively liable.
|
|
Such strong political connections allowed her to get a full divorce. Jessie Campbell returned to England from India in 1791 after which Jessie had an affair with her brother-in-law Mr. Addison. The affair was deemed to be incest as marriages between a man and his deceased wife’s sister was voidable (later made illegal). Dr. Campbell had learnt about the affair first and initiated divorce proceedings while Mrs.
|
|
The insurer has a right to avoid liability on the contract if the proposer misrepresents a material fact, or if he fails to disclose a material fact. In other words, a breach of the duty of good faith renders the contract voidable at the instance of the insurer, after he has been notified of the non-disclosure. Both positive and negative misrepresentation are recognised as grounds for avoiding the insurance contract.
|
|
The contract was held void, rather than voidable. This has introduced a distinction from cases such as Phillips v Brooks, where parties dealing face to face are presumed to contract with each other. Despite still being good law, commentators, as well as the courts, have been critical of this distinction. In Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62 Lord Nicholls, dissenting, stated it to be an "eroded" principle of law.
|
|
In India leonine contracts are generally deemed unconscionable contracts (though not all leonine contracts are unconscionable contracts) and are voidable. The 199th Law Commission report (2006) on "UNFAIR (PROCEDURAL & SUBSTANTIVE) TERMS IN CONTRACT" deals with it. The unfairness can be procedural or substantive. However, standard form contracts are ubiquitous in India and especially in the digital age, standard form contracts are used much more frequently than any other form.
|
|
Elements of a Contract - Contracts In the United States, persons under 18 are typically minor and their contracts are considered voidable; however, if the minor voids the contract, benefits received by the minor must be returned. The minor can enforce breaches of contract by an adult while the adult's enforcement may be more limited under the bargain principle. Promissory estoppel or unjust enrichment may be available, but generally are not.
|
|
Where it is not possible to categorise transactions as unfair preferences or uncommercial transactions, they may still be voidable even if entered into outside of the time periods usually applied to such transactions. This will be the case where transactions were entered into by the company for the purpose of defeating, delaying or interfering with the rights of creditors during the 10 years prior to the relation back day.
|
|
An unenforceable contract or transaction is one that is valid but one the court will not enforce. Unenforceable is usually used in contradiction to void (or void ab initio) and voidable. If the parties perform the agreement, it will be valid, but the court will not compel them if they do not. An example of a transaction which is an unenforceable contract is a contract for prostitution under English law.
|
|
In other jurisdictions, they are only voidable and an application must be made by a liquidator or creditor for the floating charge to be set aside. In most jurisdictions, a floating charge is only vulnerable to the extent that it does not secure new money for the company.See for example section 245(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 So if a bank has a loan of £100 outstanding to a company, and it advances a further £50 but takes an "all-monies" floating charge as security, and the company goes into liquidation 3 months later, the floating charge will validly secure the £50 advance which was made at the time, but not the earlier £100. Legislation relating to voidable floating charges is intended to prevent abuse of a security interest which catches literally all of the assets of the company, and could be used by person to strip out all of the assets from a company in difficulty from the unsecured creditors.
|
|
The House of Lords held that the transaction was effected at an undervalue, was voidable under section 238. The computer rental agreement was taken as consideration for the deal, but when assessing its value, reality and not speculative values should not be taken into account. The collateral agreement was precarious, and worthless because the headlessors had immediately declared the transaction to be a repudiatory breach, and it therefore had no value to Brewin Dolphin.
|
|
A liquidator may challenge transactions entered into in the twilight period prior to insolvency where such transactions constitute either an unfair preference or an undervalue transaction.Companies Law, section 145 and section 146. However there is no separate avoidance regime for voidable floating charges or for extortionate credit transactions. A liquidator can also pursue former directors (including shadow or de facto directors) and officers of the company for fraudulent trading (but not for mere insolvent trading).
|
|
Jonathan Parker J ordered repayment by Closed Asset Finance Ltd of the £20,000. It was indisputable that the payment to CAF improved CAF's position and Mr Sagar's position (because he was going to be liable under the guarantee). It was therefore a voidable preference under the Insolvency Act 1986, s.239(4). Mr Sagar had his own liability in mind, so he wanted to reduce Agriplant's debt and his own personal liability.
|
|
Ram if he was aged under 18 or less when he signed the guarantee, would have a rock solid defence because contracts entered into by minors aged under 18 are legally void i.e. not legally enforceable (although there are some exceptions). However, because he was aged 18, Ram had to meet the much tougher standard of the contract being merely voidable, i.e. he had to show that the contract was unfair to him.
|
|
A contract made by a minor is often voidable, but a minor can only avoid a contract during his or her minority status and for a reasonable time after he reaches the age of majority. After a reasonable period of time, the contract is deemed to be ratified and cannot be avoided.US Legal, Inc., Contract by a minor, accessed 23 February 2016 Other examples would be real estate contracts, lawyer contracts, etc.
|
|
This may be of importance where only the final contract, not the interim contract, is voidable because of a misrepresentation or other unlawful conduct, and also where the terms of the two contracts differ. Granting insurance cover by way of interim insurance does not oblige the insurer to provide permanent cover. By the same token, the person enjoying interim cover is not compelled to accept permanent cover from the insurer merely because he has accepted interim cover.
|
|
By requiring a conveyance stage as well as the formation of a contract, Scots law adopts the traditio system where the cause of the transfer may be void or voidable, but the conveyance remains legally valid. Areas of Scots law, such as the law of sale in contract law have been, what is termed by some Scots legal academics as, "anglicised",van Vliet, Lars (May 2008). "The Transfer of Moveables in Scotland and England". Edinburgh Law Review.
|
|
The House of Lords held that the contract was voidable at Mr Cooper’s instance, on the basis of a mistake that it was possible for the aunt and sisters to lease the land to Mr Cooper. Since Mr Cooper was the true beneficial owner, in equity, it was impossible for a lease to be granted to him in law. Lord Cranworth said the following. Lord Westbury agreed, and expressed the issues as follows: Lord Colonsay concurred.
|
|
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from Futter and allowed the appeal from Pitt. The rule in Re Hastings-Bass meant the court could intervene if trustees failed in their decision making functions. A decision made within a trustee’s powers was voidable only if there was a breach of duty to take into account all relevant matters, including tax. If trustees acted on proper advice, they were not in breach simply because the advice was wrong.
|
|
At common law and by canon law a person who had attained the legal age of puberty could contract a valid marriage. A marriage contracted by persons either of whom was under the legal age of puberty was voidable. The legal age of puberty was fourteen years for males and twelve years for females. This section amended the law so that a marriage contracted by persons either of whom was under the age of sixteen years was void.
|
|
The liquidator of Yeovil Glove Co Ltd, a glove manufacturer in Yeovil, sued National Provincial Bank to rescind a floating charge taken within 12 months before insolvency. The bank's floating charge was to secure Yeovil Glove's overdraft, which (on top of debts of £94,000 to other unsecured creditors) had grown to £67,000 when the bank took fixed security and then as money was still unpaid, a floating charge. Over the next year, Yeovil Glove paid £111,000 and drew out (through cheques written to other people that the bank was honouring) £110,000. At the time the Insolvency Act 1986, section 245 (formerly Companies Act 1948, section 322) read that a floating charge was voidable ‘except to the amount of any cash paid to the company at the time of or subsequently to the creation of, and in consideration for, the charge.’ The bank argued that because more money had been paid out of the account than was covered by the charge (albeit that new debts were run up) the charge was not voidable.
|
|
Until this point, at common law and by canon law a person who had attained the legal age of puberty could contract a valid marriage. A marriage contracted by persons either of whom was under the legal age of puberty was voidable. The legal age of puberty was fourteen years for males and twelve years for females. This section amended the law so that a marriage contracted by persons either of whom was under the age of sixteen years was void.
|
|
The Cleveland Browns drafted Thomas in the first round of the 2007 NFL Draft with the third overall selection. Thomas spent the draft fishing on Lake Michigan with his father, father-in-law, and Joe Panos, who was also a standout offensive lineman at Wisconsin and is a former Brookfield resident. Thomas discovered he was drafted by the Browns via cell phone. Thomas signed a six-year contract worth $43 million, $23 million guaranteed, including a voidable year, with the Browns.
|
|
According to Paul J. Goda the distinction between void and voidable marriages arose in the context of a jurisdictional dispute between the civil and ecclesiastical courts. The civil courts held jurisdiction over property matters, while the church retained jurisdiction over the validity of marriages. There was an overlap in cases of inheritance where it was necessary to determine the legitimacy of putative heirs. With the Reformation the focus shifted from marriage as a religious matter to that of a civil contract.
|
|
In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void ab initio or voidable, or alternatively an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake' and the 'common mistake'. The distinction between the 'common mistake' and the 'mutual mistake' is important.
|
|
Lord Denning MR held that the doctrine of part payment of a debt not discharging the whole ‘has come under heavy fire’ but noted that estoppel, deriving from the principle laid down in Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co., could give relief in equity. Although in his opinion part payment of debt could satisfy a whole debt, he found that Mrs Rees had effectively held the builders to ransom. Therefore, any variation of the original agreement was voidable at the instance of the debtors for duress.
|
|
Accordingly, a transfer of ownership of property can therefore be (1) absolutely good, (2) void or (3) voidable based on either the absence or existence of a vitium reale or vice of consent, or where the granter lacks or does not lack transactional capacity. (1) An absolutely good transfer will give the disponee (or Buyer) an absolutely good title. This means that an Owner with absolutely good title will be immune from challenge of his/her ownership.Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, Vol 18, Property, Ch 13, para 601.
|
|
The Court of Appeal held by a majority (Jenkins LJ dissenting) that there should be no order for restitution of the overpaid rent, and the contract should be rescinded on terms (i.e. with conditions attached) that Solle be allowed to choose whether to have a lease at £250, or whether to leave the flat. Bucknill LJ held that Butcher, the landlord, was entitled to rescind the contract, saying the following. Denning LJ, concurring, said the contract was valid at law, but voidable in equity.
|
|
Title VII of the Yankton Sioux Tribal Code provides in section 7-1-3 that persons 14 and above with parental consent, of whom one of the parties is a tribal member, who are free of venereal disease may marry. Section 7-1-5 requires that they take each other as husband and wife and are declared to be husband and wife by the celebrant. Section 7-1-6 lists voidable marriages as those in which one party was already married or within prohibited degrees of consanguinity.
|
|
Mrs Pitt had acted within the terms of the power, and so her action was neither void, nor voidable. Mr Futter’s advancements had been within his powers, and there was similarly no breach of trust because he acted on the solicitors' advice, even though the advice was wrong. So that was not void or voidable either. He explained In re Hastings-Bass [1975] Ch 25 and overruled Mettoy Pension Trustees Ltd v Evans [1990] 1 WLR 1587 and Sieff v Fox [2005] 1 WLR 3811. Doctrine of Mistake - To invoke the equitable jurisdiction for a voluntary disposition to be set aside there needed to be a mistake on the donor’s part either as to the legal effect of the transaction (not as to its tax or other legal consequences) or as to an existing fact that was basic to the transaction proposed by the trustees, of so serious a character as to render it unjust for the donee to retain property, relying on Morgan v Ashcroft [1937] 3 All ER 92, per Lord Greene MR, and Ogilvie v Littleboy (1897) 13 TLR 399, 400.
|
|
The Court may not make an order against a party where it would materially prejudice a right or interest of a person who is able to bring themselves within the protective provision. Where the person defending the liquidator's claim was not a party to the voidable transaction, the protective provision requires that they must prove that they did not receive a benefit as a result of the transaction, or if a benefit was received, that it was received in good faith and at the time there was no reasonable grounds for suspecting company insolvent. But if the person defending the liquidator's claim was a party to the voidable transaction then they must prove:. # that they became a party to the transaction in good faith; # that at the time they became a party to the transaction, they had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the company was insolvent at that time or would become insolvent; # that a reasonable person in the recipient's circumstances would have had no such grounds for so suspecting; and # that valuable consideration was provided or that they changed their position in reliance on the transaction.
|
|
Duckett was traded from the Falcons to the Redskins as part of a three-team deal on August 23, 2006, involving the Denver Broncos. The Redskins traded a draft pick to the Broncos, the Broncos traded wide receiver Ashley Lelie to the Falcons, and the Redskins received Duckett from the Falcons. He signed a two-year, $1.363 million contract with the last year voidable. In 2006, he played in ten games, finishing with a career-low 38 rushes for 132 yards, two touchdowns and two receptions for 16 yards.
|
|
In the second round (35th overall) of the 2004 NFL Draft, the San Diego Chargers selected Olshansky out of the University of Oregon. In August 2004, Olshansky and the Chargers agreed on a 6-year contract, with the final year being voidable. The contract called for a $2.25 million signing bonus and had a value of $5.2 million over five years, through the 2008 NFL season. He became the NFL's first Soviet-born player. In his rookie season in 2004, he started all 16 of the team's games.
|
|
The House of Lords held that the contract was voidable for undue influence. Lord Browne-Wilkinson started by setting out the policy debate. On the one hand, a more equal society had developed in which it had become usual for both husband and wife to have a title to their home on the deeds. And both should consent with open eyes to dealings in their property. On the other hand, people’s homes were an important source of security and it was vital that banks be able to take security on them.
|
|
The insolvent may not, save under authority of a court, be a director of a company. If the insolvent enters a contract which purports to dispose of estate property, the contract is voidable at the option of the trustee; it is not void. The position is the same if the insolvent contracts without obtaining his trustee's consent where it is required. Should the trustee choose not to set aside the contract, or simply to stand by without avoiding it, the contract remains valid and binding on all parties.
|
|
The liquidator will normally have a duty to ascertain whether any misconduct has been conducted by those in control of the company which has caused prejudice to the general body of creditors. In some legal systems, in appropriate cases, the liquidator may be able to bring an action against errant directors or shadow directors for either wrongful trading or fraudulent trading. The liquidator may also have to determine whether any payments made by the company or transactions entered into may be voidable as a transaction at an undervalue or an unfair preference.
|
|
Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671 is an English contract law case, concerning the right to have a contract declared voidable in equity. Denning LJ reaffirmed a class of "equitable mistakes" in his judgment, which enabled a claimant to avoid a contract. Denning LJ said, This would have essentially recognised a wider application of a duty of disclosure in most cases, triggered by actual knowledge of one party that another party was mistaken about terms. The case was doubted by a subsequent Court of Appeal case, The Great Peace.
|
|
Futter v HM Revenue and Customs [2013] UKSC 26 is an English trusts law case, concerning the fiduciary duty to take into account relevant factors, and disregard irrelevant factors. It held that trustees who act on professional advice do not breach this duty, and that even if they do, the failure to have proper regard to relevant matters only ever renders a transaction voidable. For a transaction to be wholly set aside, as in common mistake, a decision by a trustee must be based on a truly "basic" mistake.
|
|
After returning to Switzerland the same year, he became a lawyer in Lugano while simultaneously working on his doctoral thesis, which he defended in 1988 on the subject of "Voidable transfers in groups of companies". From 1988 to 2006, he was a partner at Sganzini, Bernasconi, Peter & Gaggini in Lugano. He then worked as a senior partner at Peter, Bernasconi & Partners from 2006 to 2009, and then as a senior partner at PSMLaw from 2009 to 2017. In 2017, PSMLaw merged with Kellerhals Carrard and Henry Peter became a partner at Kellerhals Carrard Lugano.
|
|
Hudgens argued that she was a 16-year-old minor when she signed the contract in October 2005, and therefore too young to do so. She subsequently disaffirmed it on October 9, 2008. Papers filed in court by her lawyer say California's Family Code "provides that the contract of a minor is voidable and may be disaffirmed before (age 18) or within a reasonable time afterward." In 2008, Hudgens was sued by Johnny Vieira, who claims he was owed a share of Hudgens' advances, royalties and merchandising revenue in exchange for his management services.
|
|
Other grounds for divorce may include alcohol or substance abuse and impotency, infertility or homosexuality (for heterosexual married couples) of the other party that was not discussed before the union. Strictly speaking, some jurisdictions may interpret the failure to disclose such conditions in advance as actual or constructive fraud that renders the marriage void, or at least voidable unless and until accepted by the other party once s/he learns of the condition(s), and thus serves as grounds for an annulment rather than for dissolution of a theretofore-valid marriage.
|
|
A difference exists between a void marriage and a voidable marriage. A void marriage is a marriage that was not legally valid under the laws of the jurisdiction where the marriage occurred, and is void ab initio. Although the marriage is void as a matter of law, in some jurisdictions an annulment is required to establish that the marriage is void or may be sought in order to obtain formal documentation that the marriage was voided. Under the laws of most nations, children born during a void marriage are considered legitimate.
|
|
In most societies, the death of one of the partners terminates the marriage, and in monogamous societies, this allows the other partner to remarry, though sometimes after a waiting or mourning period. In some societies, a marriage can be annulled, when an authority declares that a marriage never happened. Jurisdictions often have provisions for void marriages or voidable marriages. A marriage may also be terminated through divorce. Countries that have relatively recently legalized divorce are Italy (1970), Portugal (1975), Brazil (1977), Spain (1981), Argentina (1987), Paraguay (1991), Colombia (1991), Ireland (1996), Chile (2004) and Malta (2011).
|
|
In law, a voidable floating charge refers to a floating charge entered into shortly prior to the company going into liquidation which is void or unenforceable in whole or in part under applicable insolvency legislation.See for example section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in the United Kingdom and section 267 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) in Hong Kong. Generally speaking, a floating charge is only potentially vulnerable if it is entered into within the vulnerability period under applicable law. The vulnerability period is a period prescribed by statute immediately preceding the company going into liquidation.
|
|
The trustees should administer the trust for the sole benefit of the beneficiaries, against all others who might seek to benefit or profit from trust assets.UTC Section 802(a). The first cardinal principle is that the trustee should not personally profit from any transactions that occur with respect to trust property. In common law, this has generally been referred as the "no further inquiry" rule, meaning that transactions entered into by a trustee for a trustee's own account are presumed suspect with "no further inquiry" and are considered voidable upon an action by the beneficiaries.UTC Section 802(b) & comment, p. 127.
|
|
The balance sheet test asks whether "the value of the company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities." This, whether total assets are less than liabilities, may also be taken into account for the purpose of the same rules as the cash flow test (a winding up order, administration, and voidable transactions). But it is also the only test used for the purpose of the wrongful trading rules, and director disqualification.IA 1986 s 214 and CDDA 1986 s 6 These rules potentially impose liability upon directors as a response to creditors being paid.
|
|
The definition of an infant or minor varies, each state reflecting local culture and prejudices in defining the age of majority, marriageable age, voting age, etc. In many jurisdictions, legal contracts, in which (at least) one of the contracting parties is a minor, are voidable by the minor. For a minor to undergo medical procedure, consent is determined by the minor's parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The right to vote in the United States is currently set at 18 years, while the right to buy and consume alcohol is often set at 21 years by U.S. state law.
|
|
Lord Denning MR held that the contract was voidable owing to the unequal bargaining position in which Mr Bundy had found himself vis a vis the bank. He held that undue influence was a category of a wider class where the balance of power between the parties was such as to merit the interference of the court. It was apparent that Mr Bundy had, without independent advice entered the contract and it was very unfair and pressures were brought to bear by the bank. Sachs LJ held that a presumption of undue influence had not been rebutted, because Herbert was not independently advised.
|
|
The Omaha Tribal Code indicates at section 19-1-2.a that all marriages validly performed in the jurisdiction where and when performed are valid. Section 19-1-5 provides that during a ceremony of choice, the parties must take each other as husband and wife and the person performing the ceremony must thereafter declare them to be husband and wife. Void and voidable marriages per section 19-1-6 include those within prohibited degrees of consanguinity, those in which a party had a living spouse and those in which a party is incapable of having sexual relations or was forced or coerced.
|
|
The Spirit Lake Tribe Law and Order Code, as amended by Resolution A05-04-159 adopted on July 28, 2004, states at section 9-1-101 that marriages consummated by tribal custom are valid and legal. Section 9-1-105 requires that the parties must declare in the presence of the officiant, that they take each other as husband and wife, and must be declared by the officiant to be husband and wife. Void and voidable marriages per section 9-1-106 are those within prohibited degrees of consanguinity and those contracted when a party has a currently living spouse.
|
|
Title V of the Law and Order Code of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation provides that persons 14 and above with parental consent, of whom one of the parties is a tribal member, who are free of venereal disease may marry. Section 5-1-6 defines void and voidable marriages as those obtained by force or fraud, when a party was already legally married or when a prohibited degree of consanguinity existed. Section 5-1-5 requires the parties to declare that they are husband and wife in the presence of an official.
|
|
Insolvency Act, Part XVII A liquidator may challenge transactions entered into in the twilight period prior to insolvency where such transactions constitute either an unfair preference, undervalue transaction, voidable floating charge or extortionate credit transaction.Insolvency Act, Part VII A liquidator can also pursue former directors (including shadow or de facto directors) and officers of the company for either misfeasance or insolvent trading.Insolvency Act, Part VIII The Insolvency Act also regulates receiverships, including administrative receiverships. Under British Virgin Islands law it is possible to appoint an administrative receiver pursuant to a floating charge over all or substantially all of a company's assets and undertaking.
|
|
This consistency will be > welcomed by businesses operating on both sides of the Tasman. > In circumstances where creditors provided value for their payment, a payment > to a creditor will not be voidable where the creditor both acted in good > faith and had no reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency. We expect that > greater focus will now be placed on whether creditors suspected, or ought to > have suspected, insolvency at the time of payment and whether substantial > value was given by the creditor. There are other potential elements to the > defence, for example alteration of position, which were not considered.
|
|
Misrepresentation of a material fact (if the party knew the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) makes a contract voidable. Assume two people, Party A and Party B, enter into a contract. Then, it is later determined that Party A did not fully understand the facts and information described within the contract. If Party B used this lack of understanding against Party A to enter into the contract, Party A has the right to void the contract. The foundational principle of “caveat emptor,” which means “let the buyer beware,” applies to all American transactions.
|
|
Like other forms of bankruptcy, petitions filed under chapter 11 invoke the automatic stay of § 362\. The automatic stay requires all creditors to cease collection attempts, and makes many post- petition debt collection efforts void or voidable. Under some circumstances, some creditors, or the United States Trustee, can request the court convert the case into a liquidation under chapter 7, or appoint a trustee to manage the debtor's business. The court will grant a motion to convert to chapter 7 or appoint a trustee if either of these actions is in the best interest of all creditors.
|
|
Once the contract was rescinded, the buyer could be indemnified for the cost of renovation as this was necessary to the contract, but not the medical expenses as the contract did not require them to hire a manager. Were the sellers at fault, damages would clearly be available. The distinction between indemnity and damages is subtle and may be differentiated by considering the roots of the law of obligations: how can money be paid if the defendant is not at fault? The contract before rescission is voidable but not void, so, for a period of time, there is a legal contract.
|
|
Rogers married four times: first, in 1830, Sarah Frances, eldest daughter of W. N. Bentham of Chatham, a relative of Jeremy Bentham, who died soon after giving birth to her third child; secondly, in November 1834, her sister, Elizabeth, who died in the autumn of the following year, after giving birth to her first child. As the law then stood his second marriage was not ab initio void, but only voidable by an ecclesiastical tribunal. He married thirdly, in 1842, Emma, daughter of John Watson, of Finsbury Square, London. She also died in giving birth to her first child.
|
|
In April 2005, Del American notified approximately 800 potential buyers with existing reservations that the purchase price for their units would increase as a result of higher costs for concrete, steel, and labor. DelGuidice said that none of the reservations had been converted into contracts and were thus voidable by the buyers. In May 2005, a class action lawsuit was filed against Vegas Grand Condominiums Limited Partnership and Del American because of the price increases. The lawsuit consisted primarily of Nevada residents who purchased units and claimed breach of contract, fraud, deceptive trade practices, and other allegations.
|
|
Laws that determine what sort of contracts will be given effect by the judiciary, and what sort of contracts are void or voidable, often incorporate concepts of a moral economy; in many jurisdictions, traditionally a contract involving gambling was considered void in law because it was against public policy. These restrictions on freedom of contract are the results of moral economy. According to the beliefs which inspired these laws, economic transactions were supposed to be based on mutual obligation, not individual gain. In colonial Massachusetts, for example, prices and markets were highly regulated, even the fees physicians could charge.
|
|
Grand Junction Canal Proprietors (1852) 3 H.L. Cas 759, H.L. (UK). In that case the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cottenham, was found to have an interest as a shareholder in a company which was a party to a suit presented to him. As this fact was discovered after his Lordship had heard the suit, he was disqualified on the ground of his interest and the decree he issued was held to be voidable. The House of Lords said that it is "a settled principle of constitutional law that a man cannot be judge in his own cause".
|
|
Justice Harlan insisted that: > [T]o hold, as we do not, that private antitrust suits might also reach > monopolies practiced under patents that for one reason or another may turn > out to be voidable under one or more of the numerous technicalities > attending the issuance of a patent, might well chill the disclosure of > inventions through the obtaining of a patent because of fear of the > vexations or punitive consequences of treble-damage suits. Hence, this > private antitrust remedy should not be deemed available to reach § 2 > monopolies carried on under a nonfraudulently procured patent.382 U.S. at > 180.
|
|
This does not mean that an exercise of such a contractual discretion is necessarily unassailable; it may be voidable at the instance of the other party. It is a rule of the common law that, unless a contractual discretionary power is clearly intended to be completely unfettered, an exercise of such a discretion must be made arbitrio bono viri. The discretionary powers vested in mortgagees in terms of mortgage bonds conferring upon the mortgagees the right unilaterally to increase the original rate of interest payable by the mortgagor must therefore be subject to the aforesaid inherent limitation. Such a provision in a mortgage bond is therefore valid.
|
|
Millett J held that the company and its directors had not done anything in contravention of sections 238 or 239. A transaction that results in preferential status for one creditor is only voidable under section 239 if a company positively wishes, or desires, to prefer that creditor, and that desire influences entering the transaction. Here the directors did not want to improve the banks position, but simply wishes to continue trading. The creation of the security in favour of the bank was not a transaction at an undervalue within the meaning of section 238 because it did not deplete or diminish the value of the assets of the company.
|
|
Chancellor Allen held that the amendments were voidable because (1) Briskin had threatened to block transactions that were in the company's interests if the plan was not passed which could dilute his ownership (2) the proxy statement showed the only reason for the plan was Briskin demanded it. He said 'coercion' is not a meaningful word in itself, because it matters why particular behaviour counts as coercion. And here, Briskin was using his influence as a director, not merely giving advice as another shareholder. He breach his duty to act with 'complete loyalty to the interests of the corporation and it shareholders' (Winberger (1983) and Guth (1939)).
|
|
90 Where a minor tries to create a trust, it will be held voidable, and can be repudiated by him when he reaches majority, or soon after. Where the trust is clearly of detriment to the minor, the courts may decide to take it as void; the individual, when he reaches majority, could alternately plead non est factum if he had been too young to appreciate the nature of forming a trust.Edwards (2007) p.91 People who are considered mentally disordered (under the Mental Health Act 1983) and have a receiver appointed cannot have trusts directly enforced against them, as they no longer have control over their property.
|
|
But then that decision was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which reversed on the grounds that the contract was illegal ab initio and thus the arbitration clause was unenforceable. It read Prima Paint to distinguish between void contracts that could never have legal standing, such as the one at issue, and voidable contracts where that result could come to pass later as a result of dispute resolution but where the contract was legal on its face. One justice of that court, Raoul Cantero, dissented, saying that the majority was ignoring the actual language of the FAA. Buckeye petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, and it was granted in 2005.
|
|
However, this is not to be taken literally for the simple reason that a person who obtains ownership of property by deceit does not obtain full title to the property; only a voidable title.Boyce & Perkins, Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (1992) at False pretense applies to situations where the wrongdoer by deceit obtains “title or ownership – or whatever property interest the victim had in the chattel, if it was less than title.” If the victim has an interest is the property less than full title the acquisition of that interest through false representation can be false pretenses unless the only interest the person has is possession of the property.
|
|
The breach of common law directors' duties may enable a liquidator to recover property from a director, or may give the liquidator a right to an account of profits. If a director removes or misuses company property, this would ordinarily be a breach of their duty of good faith, and may render the transaction voidable. Accordingly, the liquidator may attempt to recover the property from the director, who is deemed to hold it on constructive trust for the company. A director who breaches the duty to use reasonable care and diligence may also be liable for damages if the company suffered loss as a result of the breach.
|
|
Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences. Considerable controversy is still present over whether "iniquitous pressure" must actually be exercised by a defendant in order for a consent based obligation to be voidable. While it seems clear that in cases of undue influence the pressure need not come from the person who may lose the contract,e.g. in the case of a husband who pressures his wife to sign a mortgage agreement with a bank, and the bank takes subject to the wife's equitable interest when it is found that her signature was inequitably procured.
|
|
A contract vitiated by misrepresentation is voidable and not void ab initio. The misled party may either (i) rescind, or (ii) affirm and continue to be bound. If the claimant chooses to rescind, the contract will still be deemed to have been valid up to the time it was avoided, so any transactions with a third party remains valid, and the third party will retain good title.For legal reasoning application of the difference see Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2004] 1 AC 919; Brooks, O & Dodd, A ‘Shogun: A Principled Decision’ (2003) 153 NLJ 1898 Rescission can be effected either by informing the representor or by requesting an order from the court.
|
|
Consideration will be found if a party promises to perform where there are unforeseen and/or unforeseeable circumstances sufficient to discharge the party from the obligation if any new or different consideration is promised (earlier payment or payment in stock), the promise is to ratify a voidable obligation (such as to go through despite fraud), the preexisting duty is owed to another person, and there is an honest dispute as to the duty. Also, under the Uniform Commercial Code, modifications may be made free of the Common Law legal duty rule even without consideration provided that the modification is made in good faith. See UCC § 2-209.UCC UCC However, the Statute of Frauds must be complied with.
|
|
Most jurisdictions provide for alternative vulnerability periods: a longer one for parties who are "connected" to the company, and a shorter one for unrelated third parties. Under English law, a floating charge in favour of an unconnected third party is only vulnerable if the company goes into liquidation within the next 12 months, but a floating charge in favour of a connected person is vulnerable if the company goes into liquidation within the next 2 years. The effect of laws relating to voidable floating charges varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some countries simply provide that such charge are automatically void or not enforceable,Under English law they are stated to be "invalid", which is taken to mean unenforceable.
|
|
In Dimes, the judges advised the House of Lords that Lord Cottenham's pecuniary interest made his judgment not void, but voidable. This advice is not wrong in the context of a judicial act under review, where the judgment will be held valid unless reversed on appeal.. However, in the cases of administrative acts or decisions under judicial review, the court can only intervene on the grounds of ultra vires, hence making the judgment void. Lord Esher said in Allison v General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1894)Allison v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750, Court of Appeal (England & Wales). that the participation of a disqualified person "certainly rendered the decision wholly void".
|
|
A number of decisions from Australian courts have also affected the circumstances where legal action can be taken regarding contracts, recognising factors that change contractual obligations. These include situations involving "unconscionable dealings",. where one party is at a "special disadvantage", or where a party exercises "undue influence", and will commonly result in the contract being declared void or voidable by the court. Other vitiating factors may include "misrepresentation" if it amounts to a false statement of a material fact made by the representor to the represent in order to induce the represent to enter into the contract and which has this effect,Smith v Land and House Property Corp (1884) 28 Ch D 7 LawCite.
|
|
A marriage contracted by persons either of whom was under the legal age of puberty was voidable. The legal age of puberty was 14 for males and 12 for females. In 1971, Eekelaar wrote that the prohibition now contained in this section "though desirable, is extreme and inflexible." According to him it could result in "genuine hardship", such as where it is discovered, after years of apparent marriage, that a mistake was made, at the time of the ceremony, regarding the age of one of the spouses, or where one of the spouses concealed their real age, though, after 1971, some protection was afforded by section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970John Eekelar.
|
|
Re MC Bacon Ltd [1990] BCLC 324 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning transactions at an undervalue (Insolvency Act 1986, s 238) and voidable preferences (Insolvency Act 1986, s 239). The court held that where a person granting security to a bank under commercial pressure from the bank, there was no "intention to prefer" the bank under the meaning in the Act. The granting of the security was a response to the commercial pressure, and not an intention to prefer one creditor above others. Although the decision is only a first instance decision in the United Kingdom, it has been followed in a number of other jurisdictions in relation to the proper determination of intention to prefer.
|
|
He rejected the claim noting that there is no evidence to show that any bodily injuries were suffered due to the fall from the motorcycle or that it led to the assured suffering a heart attack. In another decision, Justice Chandrachud relied on the doctrine of uberrimae fidei and held that any suppression, untruth or inaccuracy in the statement in the proposal form by the insured is a breach of the duty of good faith and will render the policy voidable by the insurer. Justice Chandrachud noted that the system of adequate disclosures helps to narrow down the gap of information asymmetries between the parties and helps the insurers to assess their risk appetite.
|
|
The original plaintiffs argued that the entire contract, including the arbitration clause, was invalid because it violated the law. When it was appealed to the High Court, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a majority of seven that the Federal Arbitration Act, as previously interpreted by the Court, settled a question that had long been debated by legal scholars and lower-court judges. The opinion distinguished void and voidable contracts, requiring that in the latter an arbitrator rule on all issues including the legality of the contract unless the arbitration clause was itself challenged.. The only dissenter was Clarence Thomas, who restated his belief that the Arbitration Act does not supersede state law.
|
|
Cundy v Lindsay (1877–78) LR 3 App Cas 459 is an English contract law case on the subject of mistake, introducing the concept that contracts could be automatically void for mistake as to identity, where it is of crucial importance.(1877-78) LR 3 App Cas 459, page 465 Some lawyers argue that such a rule is at odds with subsequent cases of mistake as to identity, such as Phillips v Brooks,[1919] 2 KB 243 where parties contracting face to face are merely voidable for fraud, protecting a third party buyer.MacMillan, p. 372 However, the ultimate question is whether the identity of the other contracting party was crucial to the contract.
|
|
The House of Commons journal of 31 January 1699 records that the freeholders, inhabitants and residents of Ibsley and Fordingbridge petitioned the House on the fact that they could not comply with the 1664 Act and were never likely to do so. The House sided with them and effectively declared its view of the law, the finality of which, lacking Royal Assent, the law of rights of way is unclear on but makes more likely the view of the Act became voidable as the works to canalise the Avon were never implemented. Undecisive court cases were brought in 1737 and 1772 to enforce the alleged but not exercised right (to benefit barge owners).
|
|
Failure to do so is known as non- disclosure or concealment (there are minor differences in the two terms) and renders the insurance voidable by the insurer.:§33(3): If [a warranty] be not [exactly] complied with, then, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty, but without prejudice to any liability incurred by him before that date.:§34(2): where a warranty has been broken, it is no defence to the insured that the breach has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, prior to the loss.:§34(3): a breach of warranty may be waived (ignored) by the insurer.
|
|
Under contract law, bar bets may or may not be legally binding, and the winning party may have difficulty having a court enforce the bet. A written contract, drawn up soberly the next day and signed by both parties, can avoid doubt. For example, if one or both parties are intoxicated when the bet is made, they may be found to lack capacity to agree to a contract, and the contract thus found void or voidable. However, the fact that the agreement is oral but not written does not undermine it: oral contracts are valid, though certain contracts must be written, under the statute of frauds, such as for the transfer of land.
|
|
It is also possible that a contract becomes voidable, because, depending on the specific type of contract, one party failed to make adequate disclosure or they made misrepresentations during negotiations. Unconscionable agreements can be escaped where a person was under duress or undue influence or their vulnerability was being exploited when they ostensibly agreed to a deal. Children, mentally incapacitated people and companies, whose representatives are acting wholly outside their authority, are protected against having agreements enforced against them where they lacked the real capacity to make a decision to enter an agreement. Some transactions are considered illegal, and are not enforced by courts because of a statute or on grounds of public policy.
|
|
The case put a high standard on the finding of common mistake. This was criticized in the later cases written by Lord Denning such as in Solle v Butcher where Denning LJ reduced the standard by enumerating an equitable remedy for a shared common mistake, which rendered the agreement voidable. Subsequently, in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (2002) the Court of Appeal purported to overturn Solle v Butcher and set the standard for common mistake in line with the original Bell v Lever Brothers standard. Also in Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Meyer,[1959] AC 324 Lord Denning remarked the following, in the context to the equivalent of an unfair prejudice action under UK company law.
|
|
Lord Denning MR found that the contract was voidable owing to the unequal bargaining position in which Bundy had found himself, in that he had entered into the contract without independent advice and that unfair pressures were exerted by the bank. Essentially, the court ruled that only the bank benefitted from the agreement to raise the amount of the mortgage, and that it had exploited Bundy's weakness. The transaction was found to be unconscionable and Bundy only had to honor the lower mortgage amount. It is notable that Denning's judgment did not represent the law in National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan, in which a family home was likewise subjected to a second mortgage to secure a loan on the husband's business with Abbey National Bank.
|
|
Typically, documents or acts which are void ab initio cannot be fixed and if a jurisdiction, a document or an act is so declared at law to be void ab initio, the parties are returned to their respective positions that they were at the beginning of the event. "Void ab initio" is often contrasted with "voidable", such documents which become void only as of the date of the judicial declaration to that effect. An insurer facing a claim from an insured who had deceived the insurer on a material fact would claim that the insurance contract was void ab initio; it was null and void from the beginning and that since there was no legally enforceable contract, the insurer ought not to have to pay.
|
|
Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Brothers (1854) 1 Paterson 394 is a UK company law case. It concerns the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and in particular, the duty not to engage in self-dealing. It laid down a basic rule that if a director had an interest in a corporate transaction, the transaction is voidable at the company's will, and it is the duty of directors to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest. This case preceded the Companies Act 2006 section 177, that requires that if directors are interested in a proposed transaction, they should merely declare that interest to the board, and section 239 which stipulates that in approving any transaction the interested director may not vote.
|
|
The doctrine that such marriages were illicit was reflected in the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the Anglican (Church of England) Book of Common Prayer.The full table of kindred and affinity from the Book of Common Prayer can be seen at Prohibition of marriage between certain degrees of kindred outlawed what is known as incest; prohibition between degrees of relationship by marriage (affinity) as opposed to blood (consanguinity) seems to have reflected an analogous taboo. At least one novel, Felicia Skene's The Inheritance of EvilFull text at (1849), addressed the topic in polemic fictional form. Under ecclesiastical law, a marriage within the prohibited degrees was not absolutely void but it was voidable at the suit of any interested party.
|
|
When Jacob Bishopp sold Anne Orthwood's indenture to Lieutenant Colonel William Waters, he had assured Waters that as far as he knew Anne was in perfect health and still a virgin. At some point between April and June 1664, Waters became aware of Anne's pregnancy, at which point he tried to cancel the sale and recover his down payment (the amount of which was never specified). Bishopp refused to take Anne back and return Waters' down payment, stating that the contract was valid and Waters had no legal obligation to support her. Waters believed that the contract was voidable because Bishop had provided a false description of Anne's physical condition, since it was impossible for Anne to have not been pregnant at the time of the sale.
|
|
2-Year Right of Rescission - Generally, a violation of the contractual requirements or any of the prohibited acts in Subdivision 7 makes the conveyance voidable and may be rescinded within 2 years of the date the deed was recorded. The statute then gives the equity purchaser (or its successor) twenty days to reconvey the property on the condition of repayment of any consideration paid to the equity seller. HEPTA does not affect the rights of a bona-fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value if their conveyance occurred before the recording of the notice of rescission. 6-Year Statute of Limitations - Within 6 years, an equity seller may bring an action for the recovery of damages or equitable relief against an equity purchaser for a violation of HEPTA.
|
|
Morgan signed a five- year contract worth $12 million for the first two years, $7.5 million of which guaranteed, and the last three years voidable by the Washington Redskins on March 13, 2012. By the start of the 2012 season, he was named the second starting wide receiver opposite of Pierre Garçon after competing with Leonard Hankerson for the starting flanker position. In Week 2 against the St. Louis Rams, he was penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct during the Redskins' two- minute drive attempt in the fourth quarter to tie with or beat the Rams. After catching a pass on a third down and being tackled by Cortland Finnegan, Finnegan shoved Morgan while he was getting up and put his hand in Morgan's face.
|
|
Post-war, Denning LJ added to the doctrine, beyond its narrow legal confines, in line with the more permissive approach recognised throughout civil law countries, most of the Commonwealth and the United States. In Solle v Butcher[1950] 1 KB 671 he held that in equity a contract could be deemed voidable (rather than outright void) if it would be 'unconscientious' for a court to hold someone to a bargain. This gave the courts some flexibility in the kind of remedy they would grant, and could be more generous in the circumstances they allowed escape. But in The Great Peace, Lord Phillips MR said that this more permissive doctrine had been contrary to the House of Lords authority in Bell v Lever Bros Ltd.
|
|
See Walker v Boyle [1982] 1 WLR 495 An exception to the law on misrepresentation – that contracts are voidable at the instance of the misrepresentee, but the right to rescission can be barred inter alia by the intervention of third party rights – arises when someone is induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation to enter an agreement through a written document at a distance (and not when a transaction is face to face). In Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson[2003] UKHL 62 a crook obtained Mr Patel's credit details and bought a Mitsubishi Shogun on hire purchase contract at a car dealer. Shogun Finance was faxed through Mr Patel's details, and agreed to finance the purchase of the car, letting the crook drive away.
|
|
Because Potter took advantage of Ms Creswell's ignorance of property transactions, Megarry J held the agreement was voidable.[1978] 1 WLR 255 One potential exception to this pattern, and now very heavily restricted, is the defence of "non est factum", which originally applied in favour of illiterate people in the 19th century allowed a person to have a signed contract declared void if it is radically different from what was envisaged.cf Gallie v Lee [1970] UKHL 5, [1971] AC 1004, where an old lady who had broken her glasses was still bound to a contract in which she had conveyed her house away to her nephew's shady business partner, even though she had been deceived into thinking the document was merely for a gift to the nephew.
|
|
It is more likely that a contract ceases to be enforceable because, as a matter of the law of agency the third party should have reasonably known that the person contracting lacked authority to enter an agreement. In this situation a contract is voidable at the instance of the company, and could only be enforced against the (probably less solvent) employee. In a fourth case, the consequences of incapacity are more drastic. Although the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 made it possible for the government or emanations of the state to be sued on contracts in the same way as a normal individual, where statute confers power on a public body to do certain acts, actions by representatives beyond that power will be ultra vires and void.
|
|
18: the proposer of the insurer has a duty to disclose all material facts relevant to the acceptance and rating of the risk. Failure to do so is known as non-disclosure or concealment (there are minor differences in the two terms) and renders the insurance voidable by the insurer. :s.33(3): If [a warranty] be not [exactly] complied with, then, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty, but without prejudice to any liability incurred by him before that date. :s.34(2): where a warranty has been broken, it is no defence to the insured that the breach has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, prior to the loss. :s.
|
|
The only other consideration given by Brewin Dolphin was the promise to carry out a lease agreement for computers, which itself was likely to be unwound and therefore worthless. The House of Lords held that the total package of connected transactions could be taken into account to decide whether a transaction was undervalued or not, and held that this one was. The third action, which has operated since the Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571, is that transactions entered into by a bankrupt are voidable if they would result in assets otherwise available to creditors becoming unduly depleted or particular creditors becoming unjustly enriched.See also Alderson v Temple (1768) 96 ER 384, where Lord Mansfield held the Act extended beyond merely "conveyances" to preferences to achieve the policy of equality intended by the law.
|
|
Unless the buyer can show that there was some fraud involved, or the seller breached an express warranty, the buyer is not entitled to a refund. This would be a specific example where fraud in the inducement could outweigh anything in the contract, express or implied: it simply does not matter what disclaimer or limitations may be found in the contract, if the contract is void (or voidable) for any reason. Disgruntled buyers of real estate, and their respective improvements, may be faced with other complicated property law issues if a deed is conveyed as a result of a contract with an "as is" clause. In real estate, these are the larger potential problems than issues with the structure itself, which can be drawn out with an inspector.
|
|
The Law and Order Code of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Chapter 7 – Domestic Relations) provides that any unmarried male and any unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, or with parental consent may consent and consummate a marriage. Voidable marriages involve physical incapacity or if consent was obtained by force or fraud, unions breaching prohibited degrees of consanguinity, and marriages that would result in polygamy. Section 2.12 requires that the parties declare in the presence of the officiant that they take each other as husband and wife. However, section 2.2 confirms that all marriages contracted outside of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, which are valid under the law of the state or Country in which they were contracted, are valid in the jurisdiction of the tribe.
|
|
Drahozal, Christopher; , 79 In L.J. 393, 394n4 (2004). Many mandated binding arbitration before disputes even arose. Since Southland and subsequent decisions held that state courts have no basis other than standard defenses to contract validity for staying arbitration, the states have instead begun to regulate the arbitration process and agreement themselves, particularly through a model statute called the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA), which, has as of 2010, been adopted by 13 states and the District of Columbia, with three more states considering it. California now requires that an arbitrator disclose any potential conflicts of interest to parties prior to the arbitration, and New Mexico added to its version of the RUAA a "disabling civil dispute clause" making arbitration agreements voidable in consumer, credit, employment and tenant contracts.
|
|
There is an inevitable overlap between the general offence of theft, contrary to section 1(1), and these offences because they cover both general and specific situations in which the defendant will appropriate property by using some form of deception. Deception offences are separately defined to avoid any problems that might arise when the "victim" consents to the taking. Because the effect of the deception may be to persuade the owner to pass title to the goods, albeit on a voidable title, those goods may not "belong to another" at the time of the appropriation. In fact, strong authority has emerged that this is not a real problem because an appropriation is the "assumption" of the rights of ownership, whether that assumption is effective in law: see R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 .
|
|
Chapter 3 of the Law and Order Code of the Oglala Sioux Tribe provides at section 28 that marriage is a consensual personal relationship arising out of a civil contract, which has been solemnized. Per section 30, any tribal member of legal age, or with parental consent if a minor, may obtain a marriage license from the Agency Office or consummate marriage under authority of license by the state of South Dakota. Voidable or forbidden marriages include incestuous marriages (§31), those obtained if a party is incapable of consent, through fraud, or within prohibited degrees of consanguinity (§32), and those which occur when another spouse is still living (§33).OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE: LAW AND ORDER CODE CHAPTER 3 DOMESTIC RELATIONS A memorandum by the tribal attorney from January 25, 2016 confirmed that same-sex marriages are not prohibited under the existing Tribal Code.
|
|
The most relevant protective measure at common law today is the right of borrowers to cancel mortgages if they were misrepresented about the mortgage's terms, or if they entered agreements because of under influence. In the leading case, Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2), a group of appeals all involved a husband allegedly pressuring his wife into signing a mortgage agreement with a bank, where security was over the family home.[2002] 2 AC 773 The House of Lords agreed that undue influence would make a contract voidable, and if a bank should have realised this possibility, it could not enforce the mortgage agreement against the spouse's share of the home. Accordingly, if banks wished to ensure valid mortgages they would need to have confirmation from an independent solicitor that the spouse fully understood the transaction.
|
|
"Inequality of bargaining power" is a term used in English law to express essentially the same idea as unconscionability, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone's consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable to enforce agreements. Controversy exists as to whether a contract should be voidable simply because one party was pressured by circumstances wholly outside the other party's control. The leading case on undue influence is considered to be Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy; the case is remarkable in that judgment was put forth that English law should adopt the American approach that all impairments of autonomy should fall under the single principle of "inequality of bargaining power".
|
|
Arguments for Taiwan already being an independent, sovereign nation # The peace that was brokered in the Treaty of Shimonoseki was breached by the Boxer Rebellion, which led to the conclusion of the Boxer Protocol of 1901 (Peace Agreement between the Great Powers and China), and China, not by the Second Sino- Japanese War. The Treaty of Shimonoseki was a dispositive treaty, therefore it is not voidable or nullifiable (this doctrine being that treaties specifying particular actions which can be completed, once the action gets completed, cannot be voided or reversed without a new treaty specifically reversing that clause). Hence, the unequal treaty doctrine cannot be applied to this treaty. By way of comparison, as 200,000,000 Kuping taels were not returned to China from Japan, and Korea had not become a Chinese-dependent country again, the cession in the treaty was executed and cannot be nullified.
|
|
The liquidator of Shoe Lace Ltd sought a declaration that a debenture given to Sharp Investments Ltd, which owned 80 per cent of Shoe Lace and was part of a group controlled by the alleged shadow director Mr Mahtani who lived in Ratingen, was invalid under the Insolvency Act 1986 section 245 because it was created after payments to the company. Shoe Lace had shoe shops in Lancashire and Yorkshire but was hopelessly insolvent by April 1990. It gave a debenture to Sharp Investments Ltd secured with a floating charge over the whole undertaking on 24 July. Sharp gave it £300,000 on 3 April, £50,000 in May and £11,500 in July. The Insolvency Act 1986 section 245(2)(a) states that a floating charge is voidable if the value given for the charge does not come after or ‘at the same time’ as the charge created.
|
|
He held: > Proposal forms are a significant part of the disclosure procedure and > warrant accuracy of statements. Utmost care must be exercised in filling the > proposal form. In a proposal form the applicant declares that she/he > warrants truth. The contractual duty so imposed is such that any > suppression, untruth or inaccuracy in the statement in the proposal form > will be considered as a breach of the duty of good faith and will render the > policy voidable by the insurer. The system of adequate disclosure helps > buyers and sellers of insurance policies to meet at a common point and > narrow down the gap of information asymmetries In a judgment reported in national media, Justice Chandrachud dealt with the question of whether a death caused due to malaria occasioned by a mosquito bite constituted a ‘death due to accident’ covered under the terms of an insurance policy.
|
|
Individuals may have an inherent physical condition that prevents them from achieving the normal levels of performance expected from persons of comparable age, or their inability to match current levels of performance may be caused by contracting an illness. Whatever the cause, if the resulting condition is such that individuals cannot care for themselves, or may act in ways that are against their interests, those persons are vulnerable through dependency and require the protection of the state against the risks of abuse or exploitation. Hence, any agreements that were made are voidable, and a court may declare that person a ward of the state and grant power of attorney to an appointed legal guardian. In England and Wales, this is a specific function of the Court of Protection, and all matters concerning persons who have lost, or expect soon to lose, mental capacity are regulated under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
|
|
The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, also known as the Istanbul Convention, states: Article 32 – Civil consequences of forced marriages Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that marriages concluded under force may be voidable, annulled or dissolved without undue financial or administrative burden placed on the victim. Article 37 – Forced marriage # Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the intentional conduct of forcing an adult or a child to enter into a marriage is criminalised. # Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the intentional conduct of luring an adult or a child to the territory of a Party or State other than the one she or he resides in with the purpose of forcing this adult or child to enter into a marriage is criminalised.
|
|
The requisites of a legal jointure are: # the jointure must take effect immediately after the husband's death; # it must be for the wife's life or for a greater estate, or be determinable by her own act; #it must be made before marriage; if after, it is voidable at the wife's election, on the death of the husband; #it must be expressed to be in satisfaction of dower and not of part of it. In equity, any provision made for a wife before marriage and accepted by her (not being an infant) in lieu of dower was a bar to such. If the provision was made after marriage, the wife was not barred by such provision, though expressly stated to be in lieu of dower; she was put to her election between jointure and dower. After marriage, a wife could bar her right to dower by a fine being levied.
|
|
Based on these a marriage is validated, if not it is termed as void marriage or voidable marriage at the option of either of the spouses. Here upon filing a petition by any one spouse before the Court of law a decree of nullity is passed declaring the marriage as null and void. A valid marriage can be dissolved by a decree of dissolution of marriage or divorce and Hindu Marriage Act, The Divorce Act and Special Marriage Act allow such a decree only on specific grounds as provided in these acts: cruelty, adultery, desertion, apostasy from Hinduism, impotency, venereal disease, leprosy, joining a religious order, not heard of being alive for a period of seven years, or mutual consent where no reason has to be given. Since each case is different, court interpretations of the statutory law gets evolved and have either narrowed or widened their scope.
|
|
A contract might be voidable from unilateral mistake for any of the following: :(1) One party relied on a statement of the other about a material fact that the second party knew or should have known was mistaken by the first party. :(2) “clerical error that did not result in gross negligence” ::For mechanical calculations, a party may be able to set aside the contract on these grounds provided that the other party does not try to take advantage of the mistake, or 'snatch up' the offer (involving a bargain that one did not intend to make, betrayed by an error in arithmetic etc.). This will be seen by an objective standard, or if a reasonable person would be able to know that the mistake would not make sense to one of the parties. Unless one of the parties 'snatched up' the one-sided offer, courts will otherwise uphold the contract. :(3) The mistake was “unconscionable”, i.e.
|
|
In this case, Bundy agreed to increase the mortgage on his farmhouse in order to maintain the line of credit being extended to his son's business. The question was whether the contract leading to the repossession of Bundy's farmhouse was voidable due to pressure brought by the bank. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales ruled that since the amount of the loan was already higher than the existing mortgage, Bundy received no direct benefit from the agreement to increase the mortgage amount; that the bank failed to notify him of the true financial condition of his son's business, and that it threatened to call in his son's loan if Bundy did not agree to the increase. Furthermore, since Bundy relied upon Lloyd's for the mortgage and his son's line of credit, the bank-customer relationship was found to have created a fiduciary duty; hence, the bank should have recommended that he seek independent legal advice.
|
|
Contracts between companies and third parties, however, may turn out to be unenforceable on ordinary principles of agency law if the director or employee obviously exceeded their authority. As a general rule, third parties need not be concerned with constitutional details conferring power among directors or employees, which may only be found by laboriously searching the register at Companies House.e.g. Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 119 ER 327, Mahony v East Holyford Mining Co (1875) LR 7 HL 869 In general, if a third party acts in good faith, then any contract, even one going beyond the constitutional authority of the director or employee with whom they strike a deal, is valid. However, if it would appear to a reasonable person that a company employee would not have the authority to enter an agreement, then the contract is voidable at the company's instance so long as there is no equitable bar to rescission.
|
|
Any marriage can be voidable and may be annulled on the following grounds: the marriage has not been consummated due to impotency, may be complete or partial impotency (for example conditions such as impotence quoad hoc), contravention of the valid consent mental illness condition specified in Section 5, or that the respondent at the time of the marriage was pregnant by someone other than the petitioner. Divorce can be sought by husband or wife on certain grounds, including: continuous period of desertion for two or more years, conversion to a religion other than Hindu, mental abnormality, venereal disease, and leprosy. A wife can also present a petition for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of if the husband marries again after the commencement of his first marriage or if the husband has been guilty of rape, sodomy, or bestiality. Newly married couples cannot file a petition for divorce within one year of marriage.
|
|
By the start of insolvency proceedings, Stroymontazh had completed all its residential construction projects meeting all its obligations to homeowner-to-be investors under shared-equity schemes and restructured its debt to all but one creditor bank: the Bank of St Petersburg, Sberbank, Alfa-Bank, Baltinvestbank, Rosbank, Credit Europa Bank, and others, while only Baltiisky Bank rejected the restructuring offer. All transactions involving Stroymontazh's assets undertaken before the company went into administration were subsequently found by the inquiry to be economically justified, “that is, by improving the financial position of the company, they enabled the company to complete the construction of residential properties for private investors and repay the amounts owed to other creditors”. There was no sign of fraudulent activities, such as unfair (voidable) preference, asset hiding or any other criminal conduct associated with bankruptcy found by the inquiry. Stroymontazh was in bankruptcy administration for 5 years and on 14 July 2015 the company was 'struck off' the Russian Companies Register and is deemed wound up .
|
|
Insolvent transactions are transactions entered into by a company whilst insolvent, or transactions entered into by the company the result of which caused the company to become insolvent. An insolvent transaction may be voidable when one of the following conditions apply: # It was entered into during the 6-month period immediately before the relation back day or during the period between the relation back day and the winding up; # it was an uncommercial transaction entered into during 2 years prior to relation back day; # it was a related entity transaction during the 4-year period prior to the relation back day; # it involved a situation where the company was a party to an unfair preference or uncommercial transaction in order to defeat, delay or interfere with the rights of any or all of its creditors and the transaction was entered into during the ten years immediately prior to the relation back day. There are two categories of insolvent transactions: unfair preferences, and uncommercial transactions.
|
|
The Delhi High Court, as well as other state high courts of India, have disagreed. The Delhi Court, for example, ruled that Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 overrides all personal laws and governs each and every citizen of India2012 [Volume No. 3] JCC [Journal of Criminal Cases] Page No. 2148 The ruling stated that an under- age marriage, where either the man or woman is over 16 years old, would not be a void marriage but voidable one, which would become valid if no steps are taken by such court as has option[s] to order otherwise. In case either of the parties is less than 18 years old, the marriage is void, given the age of consent is 18 in India, sex with minors under the age of 18 is a statutory crime under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Various other High courts in India - including the Gujarat High Court, the Karnataka High Court and the Madras High Court \- have ruled that the act prevails over any personal law (including Muslim personal law).
|
|
On the other hand, the insolvent may enforce payment for work done after sequestration because section 23(9) expressly gives him the right to recover this remuneration for his own benefit. A contract made by the insolvent without the trustee's consent, where such consent is necessary, is not void, but it is voidable at the instance of the trustee. This is subject to the qualification that, if an insolvent purports to alienate, for valuable consideration, and without the consent of the trustee of the insolvent estate, any property acquired after sequestration, or right to such property to a person who proves that he was not aware and had no reason to suspect that the estate of the insolvent was under sequestration, the alienation shall nevertheless be valid. The insolvent may follow any profession or occupation, and enter into any employment—except that he may not, without the written consent of the trustee, carry on, or be employed in, the business of a trader who is a general dealer or manufacturer.
|
|
Body Lore and Laws Essays on Law and the Human Body, edited by: Andrew Bainham, Shelley Day Sclater, Martin Richards, pp 171- 182 Andrew Bainham argues that this law (in England and Wales) is outdated and must be abolished "in a modern society committed to equality and human rights in personal relationships".Body Lore and Laws Essays on Law and the Human Body, edited by: Andrew Bainham, Shelley Day Sclater, Martin Richards, pp 175 In a 2001 report, the Law Society’s Law Reform Committee of Ireland advocated abolishing the concept of a voidable marriage altogether (since divorce had been introduced in 1996) and criticized the consummation ground, writing the following: :The rationale behind this ground is not immediately apparent. It is not concerned with the capacity of either or both parties to procreate, still less with the ability of the parties to satisfy each other sexually during the marriage. [...] It remains a rather curious anomaly in the law, a relic perhaps of medieval times, when the first act of intercourse was thought to 'mark' a new bride as the 'property' of her husband.
|
|
See Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd v John Walker & Sons Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 164 A "common mistake" differs from the "mistakes" that take place between offers and acceptance (that mean there is no agreement in the first place), or the so-called "mistake about identity" cases that follow from a fraudulent misrepresentation (which typically makes a contract voidable, not void, unless in a written document and concluded at a distance), because it is based on performance becoming seriously difficult to perform. For instance, in Courturier v Hastie[1856] UKHL J3, (1856) 5 HLC 673 a corn shipment had decayed by the time two businesspeople had contracted for it, and so it was held (perhaps controversially) that the seller was not liable, because it was always physically impossible. And in Cooper v Phibbs(1867) LR 2 HL 149 the House of Lords held that an agreement to lease out a fishery was void because it turned out the lessee was in fact the owner. It is legally impossible to be leased something one owns.
|
|
Lord Diplock said duress is not about not knowing what you are contracting for, but ‘his apparent consent was induced by pressure exercised on him by that other party which the law does not regard as legitimate, with the consequence that the consent is treated in law as revocable unless approbated either expressly or by implication after the illegitimate pressure has ceased to operate on his mind.’ It was not appropriate to say the conduct was commercial pressure ‘wherever one party to a commercial transaction is in a stronger bargaining position than the other party’ should give rise to a right of redress. Lord Scarman said that duress not only renders a contract voidable but is also a tort if it causes damage or loss (referring to Barton v Armstrong and Pao On v Lau Yiu Long). It comes from (1) pressure amounting to compulsion of the will of the victim; and (2) the illegitimacy of the pressure exerted. The ‘lack of any practicable choice but to submit’ should be proved for (1) and here, for (2) the question was whether it was a trade dispute.
|
|
Mocatta J held that "preserving amicable relations" was not good consideration, but that increasing the letter of credit price was good consideration. He then asked if the whole agreement was procured by duress for the threat to break the original agreement. He noted ‘the best known case’ of Maskell v Horner, and also Skeate v Beale, where Lord Denman CJ said an agreement was not void because it was made under duress of goods, but noted that older cases do not deal with what happens when the threat is to breach a contract. He decided that there was such a thing as economic duress, a threat to break a contract is one form and if it led to a contract for valuable consideration ‘I think that contract is a voidable one which can be avoided and the excess money paid under it recovered.’ The agreement here was caused by ‘economic duress’. ‘The owners made a very reasonable offer of arbitration coupled with security for any award in the yard’s favour that might be made, but this was refused… I do not consider the yard’s ignorance of the Shell charter material.
|
|
In his most recent campaign, he has urged the City of Chicago to reassess Swiss Bank UBS's degree of compliance with the Slavery Era Disclosure OrdinanceText of Chicago's Slavery Era Disclosure Ordinance see: American Legal Publishing and to analyse whether or not failure to comply with this ordinance shall deem any contracts with UBS voidable on behalf of the city. The said ordinance is the work of Alderman Dorothy Tillman, who sponsored the bill in 2003. After the case of Swiss merchant-banker Jakob Laurenz Gsell (1815–1896)UBS acknowledges slavery ties, in: Chicago Sun-Times, November 3, 2006, Fässler is referring to the case of Swiss merchant Johann Ulrich Zellweger (1804–1871)Swiss national TV report "Kulturplatz" on "Slavery then and now", who made large profits from Cuban sugar slavery and the slave trade and later became the founder of a UBS predecessor bank.Letter of 5 January 2018 to the Chicago Department of Procurement Services In November 2019, Hans Fässler founded the "Swiss Committee on Reparations for Slavery" (SCORES), which consists of about 100 personalities from or in Switzerland who are in favour of reparations for slavery (also by Switzerland).
|
|