Metropolitan Water Bd v Dick Kerr [1918] AC 119
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 06:59:37 UTC
Lord Dunedin
Held that the term regarding delays and difficulties “whatsoever and however occasioned” did not include indefinite delay.
It would be absurd to apply it to the present situation of a bar on further construction.
Lord Parmoor
Says indefinite postponement could not have been in the contemplation of the parties when making this clause.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Suisse Atlantique v Rotterdamsche Kolen
Defendant chartered a boat off Plaintiff with a contractual term that Defendant had to finish loading at each port within a specified time limit. When Defendant failed to unload in several ports with...
Stewart Gill v Horatio Myer
Plaintiff installed a machine for Defendant and claimed for the money still owed, requesting the court to give summary judgment (i.e. not giving Defendant a full right to defend themselves in trial),...
Liverpool CC v Irwin
Plaintiffs claimed for damages from Defendant, who ran their block of flats, on the grounds that Defendant had failed to maintain the flats e.g. elevator problems etc. HL held that there was an impli...
Craven v White (HL)
I found some difficulty in following the intellectual process by which, in contradistinction to the cases which preceded it, Furniss reconstructed the transaction which had taken place in that case i...
Hughes v Metropolitan Rly
Plaintiff was a lessee of property that Defendant served a repair notice which had to be complied with within a time limit or Plaintiff would face ejection. Plaintiff offered to sell the property to...
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.