Kemble v Farren
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1829 |
| Date | 13 June 1829 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
75 cases
-
Jobson v Johnson
... ... The result under the Act was explained by Tindal C.J. in Kemble v. Farren (1829) 6 Bing 141 at 148 as follows: "But that a very large sum should become immediately payable in consequence of the ... ...
-
Murray v Leisureplay Plc
...of a breach of contract ( Robophone v Faciliites v Blank [1966] 1 WLR 1428 per Diplock LJ at 1447) and of avoiding disputes ( ( Kemble v Farren 1829 6 Bing 141 per Tindal CJ at 148). They also include the statements to the effect that a clause will only be held to be a penalty if the sum pa......
-
Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia
...ER 313. Herbert v Salisbury and Yeovil Railway CoELR (1866) LR 2 Eq 221. Holles (Lady) v WyseENR (1693) 2 Vern 289; 23 ER 787. Kemble v FarrenENR (1829) 6 Bing 141; 30 ER 1234. Ruskin v Griffiths (1959) 269 F 2d 827. Scarf v JardineELR (1882) 7 App Cas 345. Strode v ParkerENRENR (1694) 2 Ve......
-
Stockloser v Johnson
...for royalties was exhausted. 11Many authorities were cited to the learned Judge. It was contended that the penalty law as laid down in Kemble v. Farrant (6 Bingham, 141), Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v. New Garage & Motor Company Limited (1915 Appeal Cases, page 79) had no app......
Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
-
Restitution
...equity and statute, the common law fashioned its own rules after equity. The pre-Judicature common law is exemplified in Kemble v Farren(1829) 6 Bing 141 at 148; 130 ER 1234 at 1237 where Tindal CJ said: If therefore on the one hand the Plaintiff had neglected to make a single payment of £3......
-
Lecture
SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW DISTINGUISHED SPEAKER LECTURE 2017 – “THE DOCTRINE OF PENALTIES IN MODERN CONTRACT LAW”
*
...1172 at 1194; [2015] UKSC 67 at [8], per Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption. 37 Astley v Weldon (1801) 2 Bos & P 346. 38 Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing 141. 39 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis[2016] AC 1172 at 1194; [2015] UKSC 67 at [8], per Lord Neuberger and L......
-
DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'LIQUIDATED DAMAGES' AND 'PENALTY
...only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid (Kemble v. Farren 6 Bing 141). This though one of the most ancient instances is truly a corollary to the last test Whether it had its historical origin in the doctrine of th......