ISBN: 1235877566

Taschenbuch

[EAN: 9781235877568], Neubuch, MAXWELL ALEXANDER ROBERTSON,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can… Mehr…

[EAN: 9781235877568], Neubuch, MAXWELL ALEXANDER ROBERTSON,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 Excerpt: . . . reported that Dornan would be fit for work in six weeks from the date of accident. The foreman offered him 2, 7s. 4d. , a sum equivalent to four weeks compensation, if he would sign the following receipt-- N. B. --This is a final discharge. I, J ohn Dornan, do hereby acknowledge receipt of the sum of 2, 7s. 4d. paid to me by Messrs. Allan and Son in full satisfaction and discharge of any claim competent to me in consequence of personal injury sustained by me on 29th August, 1899, in the course of my employment with said firm. The receipt was read over by Dornan who, without consulting his own doctor, who had attended him, received the money and signed the receipt. The receipt was duly stamped and witnessed. Dr. Medians report turned out erroneous, as Dornan was not fit for work until 6th March, 1900. Dornan sought to recover compensation as allowed by the Act from Allan and Son. The Sheriff held that as both parties relied on Dr. Medians report, and were under essential error, the discharge was void and null, and awarded compensation. On Appeal the Court recalled this judgment. Lord Trayner said: -- Essential error to form a ground of reduction, must be error induced by misrepresentation or under concealment on the part of the person in whose favour the deed sought C. A. (Eng. ). 16th November, 1900. MONAGHAN v. UNITED COLLIERIES, LTD. to be reduced was granted. The facts of this case as set forth by the SheriffSubstitute negative any such misrepresentation or concealment by the appellants. I think, further, that neither of the parties to the contract was under any essential error whatever in regard to any fact then existing and ascertained or ascertainable. They were equally informed. They both knew of the accident, of the . . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN.<

2012, ISBN: 1235877566

Taschenbuch

[EAN: 9781235877568], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers … Mehr…

[EAN: 9781235877568], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 edition. Excerpt: . reported that Dornan would be fit for work in six weeks from the date of accident. The foreman offered him 2, 7s. 4d., a sum equivalent to four weeks' compensation, if he would sign the following receipt--" N.B.--This is a final discharge. I, J ohn Dornan, do hereby acknowledge receipt of the sum of 2, 7s. 4d. paid to me by Messrs. Allan Son in full satisfaction and discharge of any claim competent to me in consequence of personal injury sustained by me on 29th August, 1899, in the course of my employment with said firm." The receipt was read over by Dornan who, without consulting his own doctor, who had attended him, received the money and signed the receipt. The receipt was duly stamped and witnessed. Dr. Median's report turned out erroneous, as Dornan was not fit for work until 6th March, 1900. Dornan sought to recover compensation as allowed by the Act from Allan Son. The Sheriff held that as both parties relied on Dr. Median's report, and were under essential error, the discharge was void and null, and awarded compensation. On Appeal the Court recalled this judgment. Lord Trayner said: --" Essential error to form a ground of reduction, must be error induced by misrepresentation or under concealment on the part of the person in whose favour the deed sought C. A. (Eng.). 16th November, 1900. MONAGHAN v. UNITED COLLIERIES, LTD. to be reduced was granted. The facts of this case as set forth by the SheriffSubstitute negative any such misrepresentation or concealment by the appellants. I think, further, that neither of the parties to the contract was under any essential error whatever in regard to any fact then existing and ascertained or ascertainable. They were equally informed. They both knew of.<

2012, ISBN: 1235877566

Taschenbuch

[EAN: 9781235877568], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers c… Mehr…

[EAN: 9781235877568], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1902 edition. Excerpt: . reported that Dornan would be fit for work in six weeks from the date of accident. The foreman offered him 2, 7s. 4d., a sum equivalent to four weeks compensation, if he would sign the following receipt-- N.B.--This is a final discharge. I, J ohn Dornan, do hereby acknowledge receipt of the sum of 2, 7s. 4d. paid to me by Messrs. Allan Son in full satisfaction and discharge of any claim competent to me in consequence of personal injury sustained by me on 29th August, 1899, in the course of my employment with said firm. The receipt was read over by Dornan who, without consulting his own doctor, who had attended him, received the money and signed the receipt. The receipt was duly stamped and witnessed. Dr. Median s report turned out erroneous, as Dornan was not fit for work until 6th March, 1900. Dornan sought to recover compensation as allowed by the Act from Allan Son. The Sheriff held that as both parties relied on Dr. Median s report, and were under essential error, the discharge was void and null, and awarded compensation. On Appeal the Court recalled this judgment. Lord Trayner said: -- Essential error to form a ground of reduction, must be error induced by misrepresentation or under concealment on the part of the person in whose favour the deed sought C. A. (Eng.). 16th November, 1900. MONAGHAN v. UNITED COLLIERIES, LTD. to be reduced was granted. The facts of this case as set forth by the SheriffSubstitute negative any such misrepresentation or concealment by the appellants. I think, further, that neither of the parties to the contract was under any essential error whatever in regard to any fact then existing and ascertained or ascertainable. They were equally informed. They both knew of.<