翻訳と辞書 ・ Robinson Sucroe
・ Robinson Technologies
・ Robinson Terminal
・ Robinson Thwaites
・ Robinson Town Centre
・ Robinson Township
・ Robinson Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
・ Robinson Township, Brown County, Kansas
・ Robinson Township, Crawford County, Illinois
・ Robinson Township, Michigan
・ Robinson Township, Pennsylvania
・ Robinson Township, Posey County, Indiana
・ Robinson Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania
・ Robinson Treaty
・ Robinson Uscanga Cruz
・ Robinson v Harman
・ Robinson v Kilvert
・ Robinson v Randfontein Estates Gold Mining
・ Robinson v. California
・ Robinson v. Florida
・ Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.
・ Robinson's Arch
・ Robinson's Disengaging Gear
・ Robinson's Ferry
・ Robinson's Ferry, California
・ Robinson's Hole
・ Robinson's joint consistency theorem
・ Robinson's Landing
・ Robinson's mouse opossum
・ Robinson's Requiem
|
|
| Robinson v Harman ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Robinson v Harman
''Robinson v Harman'' (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 is an English contract law case, which is best known for a classic formulation by Parke B (at 855) on the purpose and measure of compensatory damages for breach of contract that,
==Facts==
Mr Harman wrote a letter, dated 15 April 1846, agreeing to grant Mr Robinson a lease on a house in High Street, Croydon, for 21 years, starting on 19 September at £110 a year.〔The exact wording was, “to grant and deliver to the plaintiff a good and valid lease of a certain dwelling-house, etc, and other hereditaments and premises in the agreement mentioned, for a term of twenty-one years from the 29th day of September then next ensuing, at the yearly rent of £110”.〕 Then Mr Harman changed his mind and refused to complete the lease. It turned out the house was worth much more than £110 a year. Mr Harman had inherited the property from his recently deceased father. Although Mr Robinson's solicitor (whose fee was £15 12s 8d) had enquired whether the will may have vested the property in trustees, Mr Harman had said there was nothing of the sort, that it was his property out and out, and that he alone had the power of leasing. In fact trustees had got the property and Mr Harman had been entitled to only a moiety of the rent during his life. As a result of this breach of contract Mr Robinson, according to the plea,
"lost and was deprived of great gains and profits, which would otherwise have accrued to him, and paid, expended, and incurred liability to pay divers sums of money, in and about the preparation of the said agreement and lease, etc, amounting, to wit, to £20.”
Mr Harman urged that the plaintiff could not recover damages for the loss of his bargain.〔For Mr Harman, evidence was tendered that Mr Robinson, when he entered into the agreement, had full knowledge of the defendant's incapacity to grant the lease; but the judge ruled that such evidence was inadmissible.〕 Lord Denman CJ heard the trial at the Surrey Spring Assizes. He found that Mr Robinson was entitled to £200 (including court expenses) to cover the loss to Mr Robinson from not getting the house. Mr Harman appealed.
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「Robinson v Harman」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.
|
|