翻訳と辞書 |
Bird v Bicknell : ウィキペディア英語版 | Bird v Bicknell
Bird v Bicknell () 2 NZLR 542 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding fraud merely being a factor (albeit an important factor) in determining whether an exclusion clause is valid or not. It is contrasted with M E Torbett Ltd v Keirlor Motels Ltd where is held that an exclusion clause is simply not valid where a party has committed fraud. ==Background== Bird was in the business of selling franchises regarding a chemical process, which they told Bicknell was secret only to them, and that a patent application was pending. These claims were later discovered to be fraudulent, and Bicknell refused to make the final payment on his franchise. Bird pointed out the contract had a clause agreeing to no warranties were given about the patent. Bird sued Bicknell.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』 ■ウィキペディアで「Bird v Bicknell」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|