Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Professional negligence conclusion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Professional negligence conclusion
Passing Off: Importance of a correct brand name Passing off comes under the common law as one of the tort laws, which can be used to enforce unregistered trademark rights. The law of passing off prevents one person from misrepresenting his goods or services as that of another. The concept of passing off has undergone changes in the course of time. At first it was restricted to the representation of one person's goods as those of another. Later it was extended to business and services. Subsequently it was further extended to professions and non-trading activities. Today it is applied to many forms of unfair trading and unfair competition where the activities of one person cause damage or injury to the goodwill associated with the activities …show more content…
These three elements are also known as the CLASSICAL TRINITY, as restated by the House of Lords in the case of Reckitt & Colman Ltd v. Borden Inc . It was stated in this case that in a suit for passing off the plaintiff must establish the following: • Goodwill or reputation has been attached to goods or services over the period of time. • Misrepresentation on the part of the defendant, to the public (leading or likely to lead the public) to believe that the goods and services offered by him are that of the plaintiff's. • Sufficient demonstration must be made that the plaintiff has suffered a loss due to the belief that the defendant's goods and services are those of the plaintiff's. (Can be actual loss or future loss) In the present scenario the characteristics has been further studies and in the Judgment for the case Erven Warnink B.V. v. J. Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd., 1980 RPC 31, Lord Diplock gave the essential modern characteristics of a passing off action. These are as follows: • Misrepresentation, • Made by a person in the course of trade, • To prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by
The defense’s argument that Abigail’s offer did not specify a particular a purebred was not upheld by the jury. Alex thought that he was getting a Chihuahua, or at least a purebred dog. “Such a misrepresentation is one that is likely to induce a reasonable person to assent to a contract” (Twomey & Jennings, p. 273). By delivering a dog that did not reasonably fit within the slightest specifications of a purebred, Abigail blatantly disregarded the contract between she and Alex. Her ad stated that she was selling “purebred toy breed puppies”, not a mix bred (mutt) and definitely not a full size dog, which is what Alex later found out to be the dog he received. The plaintiff was in fact harmed by Abigail’s actions in the form of having paid money in good faith that she would uphold her half of the agreement. The fact that Alex accepted the puppy from Abigail and now has an attachment to the dog, does not excuse Abigail’s actions, nor does it acquit her of any wrongdoing. The plaintiff has established the four elements of
Those who are to benefit from the covenant in today’s law can now be referred to by some generic description a description of class for example the 'owners of Hudson' however they must be in existence when the covenant is made and they must also be identifiable moreover the covenant must clearly be intended to be made with them as well. The cases of (White v Bijou Mansions) (1937)4 and (Amsprop Trading ...
The decision of the House of Lords in City of London Building Society v Flegg marks a key stage in how the balance is drawn between occupiers and creditors in priority disputes; the seeds of which were originally planted in the Law of Property Act 1925. It posed a serious challenge to the conventional understanding of overreaching and the machinery of conveyancing.Ref ?
Accounting Treatment: According to ASC 350.20.20, goodwill is an asset that represents upcoming economic benefits due to a business acquisition.
The principles of constitution of trusts are derived from the case of Milroy v Lord (1862 where turner L.J. stated that the complete constitution of a trust requires the actual transfer of property from the person making the gift to the beneficiary, a transfer of the intended gift to the trustees to be held in trust for the beneficiaries or the self-declaration of a trustee. The principle in this case is that a gift can only be enforced in equity if it satisfies one of the three requirements. Where the trust does not meet any of the three requirements the trust is considered an imperfect on incompletely constitutes trust. If the donor fails to complete all the formalities required by common law, then equity will not assist the intended beneficiary and thus the gift will be imperfect. The equitable maxim applicable is that equity will not complete an imperfect gift.
There is uncertainty surrounding the law in regards to the ownership of property and proprietary estoppel. This paper will deal with these issues by analysing two cases that involve these questions. It will first address Jack’s case and whether the two objects in question are chattels or fixtures; then, it will examine a Laurence’s case and whether he can rely on proprietary estoppel or not. By dealing with the two cases, this paper will clarify questions of what constitutes a chattel or fixture, and in what situations proprietary estoppel may apply.
there must have been a wrongful act committed and the plaintiff must have suffered. (Cannell)
Current English land law on the co-ownership of interests of land has developed quite a contentious history pertaining to the relationship between the acquisition of rights and the quantification of the shares. In terms of co-ownership, there are huge variances and legal consequences when legal ownership is in one person’s name compared to two. These differences can be seen in various landmark cases which have created precedent and developed refined principles such as Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset and the Stack v Dowden. For the courts, it has often been relatively complex to distinguish between constructive and resulting trusts and to decide on the procedure to be used for the quantification of equitable entitlement once the decision to impute has been established. The quantification of resulting trusts is carefully considered in both, Midland Bank v Cooke and Stack v Snowden. In many co-ownership cases dealing with the acquisition of rights and the quantification of shares, the outcomes aren’t always proportionate. Reasons can include the ambiguities in the identification and changes of common intention and contributions types. In speaking to this issue, Baroness Hale stated in Stack v Dowden that “each case will turn on its own facts” and furthermore elaborated on the conditions for a common intention construct arising. It is furthermore important to critically discuss the repercussions these cases have for the future of co-ownership law to reconcile existing sources of confusion.
It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.
appropriation may be effected by some form of payment to the owners, as in Great
Council V Greater London Council (1982), Searose Ltd V Seatrain (UK). Ltd. in the year 1981. There are certain elements that a Judicial Precedent is dependent upon. they are that the material facts of the case must be the same. principle must be a proposition of law, it must form part of the Ratio.
is making false statements and being untruthful. For example, a person asks a car salesman for
Misrepresentation – giving a false statement to the other party with the intentions to benefit or to exploit the other party than the law can end the contract in that case.
Goodwill: sufficient amount of working capital enables a firm to make prompt payment and makes and maintain ether goodwill.
In China, the legislative framework for the registration for certification mark is completely different from the framework present in India. Moreover the new PRC trademark law which has come into effect from 1st May 2014 bought substantial changes to the current trademark regime in place in China. The protection afforded to well known trademark has been increased as Article 14 of the new Act provides that determination of well known trademark would be undertaken in case of infringement of well known trademark. However procedural norms regarding opposition proceedings have been drastically altered and now if the opposition fails at the Trademark Office level, which is the first level of review for an opposition, the mark would immediately proceed to registration. This is in contrast to the current state of law which allows the opponent in such a situation to appeal to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and further apply for judicial review at two levels of court. In addi...