The philosphy of penalties
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1604) 30 January 2016, 100-102(3)Publication details: 2016Subject(s): Summary: Examines the Supreme Court decision on penalty clauses, Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi; Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015]. Argues that the ruling has arguably made it even more difficult for a litigant to argue successfully that a contractual clause is a penalty. Further argues that commercial parties taking independent advice should have confidence that the courts will be unlikely to interfere with their contracts.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L159129 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 159129-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Examines the Supreme Court decision on penalty clauses, Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi; Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015]. Argues that the ruling has arguably made it even more difficult for a litigant to argue successfully that a contractual clause is a penalty. Further argues that commercial parties taking independent advice should have confidence that the courts will be unlikely to interfere with their contracts.