Sumpter v Hedges
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1898 |
| Year | 1898 |
| 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
52 cases
- Hasbullah Chan & Associates Architect v Rahika Development Sdn Bhd
- United Malay States Sugar Industries Ltd; Yong Mok Hin
- Haji Hasnan v Tan Ah Kian
-
Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd (Respondent/appellant)
...change. I would allow Cleveland Bridge's appeal on this ground. 82 Cleveland Bridge's grounds 2 to 3 concern an 1898 authority called Sumpter v Hedges and may be gathered together under a general heading of 83 The judge dealt with the post- 15 February 2004 valuation exercise in chapters 1......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
What does it take to get compensated from a builder in WA?
...lump sum contract, this may mean that the builder has not "earned" any part of the lump sum contract price at all: see Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673. In that event, it may be that the builder is only entitled to be paid an amount representing the "fair value" of the works actually perfor......
8 books & journal articles
-
RE-EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUTUAL PROMISES IN CONTRACT LAW.
...early case is Appleby vMyers(1867) LR 2 CP 651, 661 (Blackburn J), which cites, inter alia, Cutter (n 171). See also Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673, 674 (AL Smith (183) In addition to the cases cited at n 182 above, see, eg, Forman & Co Pty Ltd v The Ship 'Liddesdale' [1900] AC 190, 2......
-
Restitution
...be a reference to the general reluctance of the courts to grant quantum meruit remedy to a party in breach of contract (Sumpter v Hedges[1898] 1 QB 673). This may, however, be contrasted with the more liberal judicial approach to allow the party in breach to recover money paid out on the ba......
-
Restitution and Disgorgement
...to enforce the price term of the agreement subject, of course, to the employer’s counterclaim for losses resulting from the defective 96 [1898] 1 QB 673 (CA) [ Sumpter v Hedges ]. See also Lacroix Bros & Co Ltd v Cook , [1926] 4 DLR 747 (Sask CA). 97 Sumpter v Hedges , ibid at 676. 98 See S......
-
Concurrent Duties
...so there is no concurrent liability.9283 For examples of the English cases, see: Cutter vPowell (1795) 101 ER 573 (KB); Sumpter vHedges [1898] 1 QB 673 (CA); Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna vFairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd[1943] AC 32 (HL); Stocznia Gdanska vLatvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574 (......
Request a trial to view additional results