Tamplin v James
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1879 |
| 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
38 cases
- Oh Hiam and Others; Tham Kong
- Global Insurance Company Sdn Bhd; Ng Pak Cheong
-
Chong Sze Pak v Har Meng Wo
... ... These conditions were not printed or circulated among those present and the purchaser was mistaken as to what he was buying. James LJ referred at p 124 to the jurisdiction of the court to deal with any instrument or any other transactions `in which the court is of opinion that it ... amounting to injustice would be inflicted on the mistaken party by holding him to his bargain and it is unreasonable to hold him to it: Tamplin v James [1880] 15 Ch D 215 at p 221 per James LJ. See also Slee & Anor v Warke [1949] 86 CLR 271. (d). Where one party is aware that the other party ... ...
-
Ng Lay Choo Marion v Lok Lai Oi
...Investments Ltd v Royal Trust Company of Canada (CI) Ltd [1986] AC 207 (folld) Stickney v Keeble [1915] AC 386 (refd) Tamplin v James (1880) 15 Ch D 215 (folld) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Rev Ed) ss 93, 94 Tan Kok Quan and Audrey Thng (Lee & Lee) for the appellant Yusuf R Jumabhoy and S B S......
Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
-
Cases referred to in 1965
...248 Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Victoria 0. Ojemuyiwa (1965) 1 All N.L.R. 1 . 57 Tamplin v. James (1880) 15 Ch. D. 215, 222. .............................................. 30 Tawiah III v. Ewudzi 3 W.A.C.A. 52. .............................................................. 189 Teagle v. Te......
-
Specific Performance and Injunctions
...(Ont CA). 106 See, for example, Doucette v Giannoulis , 2006 NSSC 166 (uncooperative behaviour, property damage). 107 Tamplin v James (1880), 15 Ch D 215 (CA). See also Hobbs v Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Co (1899), 29 SCR 450; Freeman v Kaltio (1963), 39 DLR (2d) 496 (BCSC). 108 See, for e......
-
Specific Performance: Discretionary Defences and Considerations that Affect Discretion
...speciic mistake, and where it would be unconscionable for the second contracting party rely on the contract.” 6 See Tamplin v James (1880), 15 Ch D 215 (CA); Foderaro v Future Homes Construction Ltd (1991), 17 RPR (2d) 258 (Ont Ct Gen Div) [ Foderaro ]; Sharpe, above note 4 at § 10:2; G.H. ......
-
Table of Cases
...38, 77 Takemura v. National Australia Bank Ltd., [2003] NSWSC 339 ....................... 407 Tamplin v. James (1880), 15 Ch. D. 215, [1874–80] All E.R. Rep. 560, 43 L.T. 520 (C.A.) ................................................................ 315 Tanenbaum v. W.J. Bell Paper Co., [1956]......
Request a trial to view additional results