Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Cambridge Law Journal
  4. Content listing
Journal Home

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals: Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies: Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

9363 results in The Cambridge Law Journal

Page 138 of 469

  • In Defence of Foakes v. Beer

  • Janet O'Sullivan
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 55 / Issue 2 / July 1996
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 219-228
    Print publication:
    July 1996

  • This paper aims to defend what many academic commentators regard as indefensible—the rule in Foakes v. Beer.

    For almost four hundred years (since Pinnel's Case) English law has been clear: the payment of, or promise to pay, a smaller sum than the amount due does not discharge the debt, since the debtor provides no considerationfor the creditor's promise to waive the balance—there is no “accord and satisfaction”. The House of Lords approved this rule, albeit reluctantly on the part of Lord Blackburn, in Foakes v. Beer.

  • The Licensee's Period of Grace: Bellotti Reconsidered

  • Tamara Kerbel
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 55 / Issue 2 / July 1996
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 229-240
    Print publication:
    July 1996

  • At present the law fails to provide an adequate balance between the interests of licensor and licensee when a licensor revokes a licence but gives an unreasonably short notice. The prevailing orthodoxy has followed the Court of Appeal decision in Minister of Health v. Bellotti. This article will argue that the consequences of this decision have proved disastrous for both licensors and licensees. In direct conflict with Bellotti is the Privy Council authority of Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. The King.

  • Former Tenants, Future Liabilities and the Privity of Contract Principle: The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

  • Stuart Bridge
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 55 / Issue 2 / July 1996
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 313-357
    Print publication:
    July 1996

  • It is perfectly settled by a multitude of decisions, that, notwithstanding an assignment of his lease, the lessee continues liable on the personal privity of contract, to the payment of rent and the performance of the covenants, during the whole term; although the lessor concur in the assignment, or, by acceptance of rent, or otherwise, recognise the assignee as his tenant; and although the breach be committed after the assignment; and although a tender be made by the assignee for the very rent for which the lessee is sued; for if a plea of assignment and tender could be supported, a lessor might be compelled to accept an assignee contrary to his inclination. Indeed, by no act of his own can the tenant absolve himself from the charge.

Page 138 of 469