Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Contracts (3)
- Admiralty (1)
- Aliens (1)
- Antitrust (1)
- C. W. Blakeslee & Sons v. United States (1)
-
- Chris Nelsen & Son v. City of Monroe (1)
- Christie v. United States (1)
- City of Richmond v. I. J. Smith & Co. (1)
- Clayton Act (1)
- Commerce (1)
- Competition (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- E. H. Morrill Co. v. State (1)
- Economics (1)
- Federal Trade Commission (1)
- Government Contracts (1)
- Haggart Construction Co. v. State (1)
- Hollerbach v. United States (1)
- Import-export (1)
- Inventors (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Leases (1)
- Monopoly (1)
- Patents (1)
- Peter Salzucci & Sons Inc. v. State (1)
- Public contracts (1)
- Trade regulation (1)
- Wunderlich v. State (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Contract Interpretation Problems And The Dual Option Lease
Contract Interpretation Problems And The Dual Option Lease
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
Pandemonium In The Administrative Resolution Of Government Contract Disputes, Leslie L. Megyeri
Pandemonium In The Administrative Resolution Of Government Contract Disputes, Leslie L. Megyeri
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Treatment Of Debtors, O. John Rogge
The Anti-Claims Clause: Extinguishing A Contractor Remedy
The Anti-Claims Clause: Extinguishing A Contractor Remedy
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Discharged Attorney Is Limited To Quantum Meruit Recovery For The Reasonable Value Of His Services And The Right Of Recovery Under A Contingent Fee Contract Does Not Accrue Until The Occurrence Of The Contingency., Sean P. Martinez
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract Forthcoming.
Contracts—Statue Of Frauds: Part Performance As A Basis For Money Damages—Miller V. Mccamish, 78 Wn.2d 821, 479 P.2d 919 (1971), Anon
Washington Law Review
Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement to work defendant's farm for three years with an option to buy at the end of the term. The agreement specified that plaintiff would receive an annual salary, one-half of which would be retained and applied to the purchase price should plaintiff choose to buy the farm. On election to buy, plaintiff was to receive, as a credit towards the purchase price, one-third of the farm's increased value over $40,000. In addition, the agreement provided for a board of appraisers to settle potential disputes about the farm's value. Plaintiff took possession, made valuable improvements, …
The Insurance Contract And Policy In General As It Relates To North Carolina, Randal Rogers
The Insurance Contract And Policy In General As It Relates To North Carolina, Randal Rogers
North Carolina Central Law Review
No abstract provided.
Government Contracts For Subsurface Excavation: Misrepresentation And Change Of Conditions
Government Contracts For Subsurface Excavation: Misrepresentation And Change Of Conditions
University of Richmond Law Review
Throughout the current century, federal, state and local governments have engaged the services of private construction companies in an increasing number of governmental construction projects. Many of these projects, such as the construction of roads, tunnels, dams, bridges, and buildings, require, at least to some degree, subsurface excavation. This comment deals with some of the legal problems facing contractors and governmental agencies in such excavation, and suggests possible solutions to these problems.
Cases And Materials On Contracts, Exchange Transactions And Relationships. By Ian R. Macneil., Charles Edward Donegan
Cases And Materials On Contracts, Exchange Transactions And Relationships. By Ian R. Macneil., Charles Edward Donegan
Buffalo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Case Digest, Journal Staff
Case Digest, Journal Staff
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law
1. ADMIRALTY
A FEDERAL COURT Is NOT COMPELLED To ASSERT ITS ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION WHEN THE LITIGANTS HAVE INSUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES OR WHEN A GOOD FAITH CLAIM FOR EARNED WAGES IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE
SHIPOWNER GUILTY OF DERELECTION IN ITS NONDELEGABLE DUTY To FURNISH A SEAWORTHY VESSEL HELD NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION
INJUNCTION FOR THE REMOVAL OF A DAMAGED VESSEL CANNOT BE GRANTED IN A DIRECT ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING FOR THAT PURPOSE
SHIPOWNER'S LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO GOODS Is NOT LIMITED UNDER EITHER THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT OR THE FIRE STATUTE WHEN OWNER FAILED …
The Patent-Antitrust Balance: Proposals For Change, N.R. Powers
The Patent-Antitrust Balance: Proposals For Change, N.R. Powers
Villanova Law Review
No abstract provided.