Couldery v Bartrum
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1881 |
| Year | 1881 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
9 cases
-
D & C Builders Ltd v Rees
...is no discharge of a greater sum. 11This doctrine of the common law has come under heavy fire. It was ridiculed by Sir George Jessel in Couldery v. Martin (1881) 19 Chancery Division at p. 391. It was to be mistaken by Lord Blackburn in Foakes v. Beer, 9 Appeal Cases at p. 628. It was conde......
-
Collier v P & M J Wright (Holdings) Ltd
...has in my judgment raised a triable issue as to promissory estoppel. Some concluding observations on the rule in Pinnel's case 41 In Couldery v Bartrum (1881) 19 Ch D 394 at 399, Sir George Jessel MR observed: “According to English common law a creditor might accept anything in satisfaction......
-
Tate v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. et al.,
...Capital Properties Corp. et al. (1996), 190 A.R. 196; 44 Alta. L.R.(3d) 267 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 15]. Couldery v. Bartram (1881), 19 Ch. D. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Esquire Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd. v. Hoffman et al. (1985), 56 A.R. 184 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. ......
-
Independent Wholesale Ltd. v. Steinke and 418452 Alberta Ltd., (1996) 180 A.R. 58 (QBM)
...46 A.R. 64 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 9]. Pae On v. Lau Yiu Long, [1980] A.C. 614 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 9]. Couldery v. Bartrum (1881), 19 Ch. D. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. J.D.F. Builders et al. v. Albert Pearl (Management) Ltd., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 846; 3 N.R. 215; 49 D.L.R.(3d) 422, r......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Consideration and Form
...Stark 417, 171 ER 691 (Nisi Prius); Cook v Lister (1863), 13 CB (NS) 543, 143 ER 215 at 235 (CP) [ Cook ]. 225 See Couldery v Bartrum (1881), 19 Ch D 394 at 400 (CA), Jessel MR (“the agreement inter se supplied the additional consideration that was supposed to be necessary”). 226 Hirach and......
-
Table of Cases
...106………….....…......……………….338 Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works , 14 C.B.N.S.180.............................530 Couldery v. Bartrum (1881) 19 Ch. D. 394...................................................436 Couturier v. Hastie, 22 L.J. Exch. 97……..……….......................………….134 Cox v......
-
ESTOPPEL BY WAIVER
...sum. This doctrine of the common law has come under heavy fire. It was ridiculed by Sir George Jessel, M.R. in Couldery v. Bartrum (1881) 19 Ch. D. 394 at p 399. It was held to be mistaken by Lord Blackburn in Foakes v. Beer (1884) 9 App. Cas at p. 622. It was condemned by the Law Revision ......