Common Law. All common law claims, including but not limited to any and all rights to discovery, claims for wrongful discharge, constructive discharge, violation of public policy, breach of an express or implied contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, conspiracy, tortious interference with contract or prospective economic advantage, promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation , detrimental reliance, retaliation, and negligence;
Common Law. The restrictions in this Section 9, to the extent applicable, shall be in addition to any restrictions imposed upon the Executive by statute or at common law.
Common Law where the public interest outweighs the presumption of confidentiality and where disclosure will preserve public safety and/or prevent or detect crime. In such circumstances regard must be given to the fact that such disclosure amounts to an exception to the general principle of confidentiality and in some cases, statutory obligations under the Data Protection legislation.
Common Law. Except as this Agreement otherwise provides, this Agreement does not affect the rights or remedies of either Party in contract, tort or otherwise.
Common Law. The common law65 grants contracting parties substantial autonomy in defining their respective rights and obligations. However, their autonomy in defining remedies for breach is subject to certain limits,66 including limits on “fixed sums” payable in the event of breach. A sum fixing an amount or method of determining “liquidated damages” is enforceable, while a sum fixing a “penalty” intended to deter breach is void.67 The parties to a contract may stipulate in advance to a specified amount or methodology for determining damages in the event of a specified breach. As long as the amount represents a reasonable effort to ascertain in advance or “liquidate” damages that might otherwise be uncertain or difficult to prove, the provision will be enforceable as “liquidated damages.”68 Such clauses offer substantial utility in providing a remedy in the event of breach while retaining the basic common law focus on “compensatory” rather than “punitive” damages for breach of contract.69 In contrast, a “penalty” clause runs afoul of this same basic approach.
Common Law. At common law, an agreement explicitly describing the jurisdiction of a court as “exclusive” is relevant to, but not determinative of, the question whether the agreement creates exclusive jurisdiction. Under current principles, the second type of non-unique agreement – an agreement under which both parties agree to the “exclusive” jurisdiction of more than one court – could not be treated as exclusive at common law. This would certainly be so in the event that each party commenced proceedings in a different court nominated as having “exclusive” jurisdiction, assuming that each court treated the choices of jurisdiction as exclusive. This is the most likely scenario; history teaches us that however agreeable the parties are at the time of making the contract, they are likely to seek to exploit uncertainties and weaknesses in the jurisdiction agreement at the time the dispute arises. Parallel 87 The Court was asked to consider whether the jurisdiction agreement precluded the defendant from setting off any of its claims in the forum in which the claimant was to be exclusively sued. The Court held that in the interests of “the need to respect individuals’ right of independence” and “avoid[ing] superfluous procedure, which forms the basis of the Convention as a whole”, Art 17 of the Brussels Convention could not be read as precluding a court seised under a reciprocal agreement from taking into account a set-off when raised as a defence, not as a counter-claim: Meeth v Glacetal Sarl, supra n 28, 2142 [8]. 88 For an analysis of some other “wrinkles” in the Art 31(2) solution, see Xxxxxx, supra n 21, para 4.350; F Garcimartin, “Lis Pendens and Exclusive Jurisdiction”, in A Xxxxxxxxx and E Lein (eds), The Brussels I Regulation Recast (Oxford University Press, 2015), paras 11.50-11.53; Xxxxxx, supra n 43, 590-591. proceedings could not be prevented, under current principles. A common law court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if there are strong reasons to do so,89 but even if the defendant had commenced proceedings first in another nominated jurisdiction, this may not be a sufficiently strong reason to refuse to enforce the agreement. In that case, both courts would refuse to stay proceedings, and may grant an antisuit injunction preventing the continuation of proceedings in the other nominated court or award damages for breach of contract. In our view, non-unique agreements should be regarded as conferring non- exclusive jurisdiction on the nominated courts. Th...
Common Law. If there is an apparent conflict between legislation and common law, the legislation will take precedence. Exceptional circumstances may arise, for example, where there is a serious public health risk, or there is a risk of harm to a patient or other individuals, or for the prevention, detection or prosecution of crime. There are occasions, therefore, where seeking the individual’s consent is not always appropriate. Information held in confidence can still be disclosed without the individual’s consent, where it can be demonstrated that: disclosure is required by law (e.g. under an Act of Parliament creating a statutory duty to disclose or a court order); disclosure is necessary for the detection, prevention and prosecution of crime or the apprehension of offenders; information is already clearly in the public domain; there is an overriding duty to the public that outweighs maintaining public trust in a confidential service and the duty of confidence to the individual (e.g. health and safety); there is a risk of death or serious harm to one or more other individuals or the public at large; the individual lacks the capacity to make an informed decision for themselves (e.g. where a patient is incapable of giving consent then any disclosure which is in their best interests would be permissible); in the vital interest of the individual concerned (e.g. information relating to a medical condition may be disclosed in a life or death situation). Public Interest Public interest criteria will include, but is not limited to: health and safety; prevention and reduction of crime and disorder; detection of crime; apprehending offenders; protection of persons at risk within the community; administration of justice; national security. Signatory organisations need to clearly establish, in each case, these considerations are sufficient to override the Common Law Duty of Confidence and that the disclosure is strictly necessary for these purposes. Proportionality of the data sharing The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights restricts public authorities in its use of private information. Article 8, the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life is the most commonly referred to article when considering and dealing with requests for disclosure of information. The right is qualified, in that it may be interfered with where this is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society: in the intere...
Common Law. In the event that any employee exercises a valid right to claim common law damages under the WA Act, then such employee shall not be entitled to the additional payments under this clause 14 and any such sums already paid shall be returnable to the company or, if common law damages are awarded, shall be deemed an advance payment in part satisfaction of such damages.
Common Law. The common law developed in England as a result of Parliament leaving most matters relating to private disputes to the courts. Like civil law, the early source of the common law was often Roman law as expressed in the Justinian Code. However, contract and commercial law also devolved from judicial recognition of common trade customs and usages among merchants. Unlike the civil law, the common law was gradually developed by courts in the process of resolving specific disputes. The chief advantage of the common law is that particular disputes are resolved after full and careful consideration of the arguments proffered by the opposing sides. The chief disadvantage is that, because of this case-by-case approach, the common law of a particular body of law, e.g., contract law, must be gleaned from reading and synthesizing a great many cases. Although legal treatises, authored by scholars of particular legal topics, summarize the common law, there may still be gaps in the law, important differences among particular jurisdictions and disagreement among treatise writers as to the proper interpretation or scope of a particular rule, the preferred rule where the rules conflict, and various details. Commencing in the 1800s, there has been a slow but accelerating movement toward codification. Common law countries are developing large bodies of statutory laws that collectively resemble civil codes. Thus, although courts still develop common law, the legislative arms in common law States have become very active in codifying large bodies of law, especially commercial law. Nevertheless, the courts remain the branch of government that interprets and applies these codes in the context of actual disputes in much the same way as they interpret contracts between disputing parties Common law may therefore be an appropriate choice for the substantive law governing a complex contractual relationship because it is “judge-made law” that is regularly updated through court decisions; and because it is reflective of current commercial issues, comprehensive, and adaptable to changes in business practices and attitudes. The common law is of course not identical across jurisdictions, and certain fundamental principles may be interpreted quite differently. One example is the duty of good faith. This generally does not exist in English law (arguably it may exist in certain situations or under different guises), while it generally does exist in New York law. Drafters should investigate the...
Common Law. The employer agrees to take out appropriate and sufficient insurance to indemnify the employee against any claim, charge, expense, legal and other cost arising from the legal liability to third parties for bodily injury and/ or property damage as a result of an occurrence, arising from the employee acting in the course of his/ her employment, except where such an occurrence is the result of gross negilence, deliberate misconduct or malice.
