Business Law

AuthorProfessorSubjectDateCase I1 .Hanson could prove its case through the terms and conditions of the lease isotropy , particularly the obligation of great Western squeeze business sector to supporting the building in good condition . hence , the penalty agreed upon for the failure to perform the express discernment is a forfeiture of the lease . Therefore , when Hanson served large(p) Western railroad with notice to make necessary repairs not later than hexad months and the latter failed to do so , the failure constituted an instantaneously forfeiture of the lease contract2 . The defense that gigantic Western railroad could raise is estoppel on the part of Hanson . Accordingly , Hanson is stooped from claiming that Great Western Railway breached the contract by not devising the necessary repairs within six month s .

As a public rule , the law on estoppel protects a party who would f on the whole back injury if : the defendant has give tongue to or done something to wager about an expectation the complainant practically relied on the said expectation and that the plaintiff would take on injury if the expectation were untrue3 . The facts that Great Western Railway could rely upon to prove its defense is that Hanson consented to confuse all repairs awaiting the result of the negotiations concerning its quip to Hanson to buy back the remain years on the first lease contract . Accordingly , Hanson expressed interest in the proposal and acquiesced to delay all repairs while the parties were in pipe down in negotiationsCase II1 . Unde! r the Canadian law , for...If you want to vex a full essay, rig it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay