• Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Newspaper advert on a bridge over the Silverstone racetrack.

      This is what I found on Google!

      In Express Newspapers Plc v. Silverstone Circuits the English Court of Appeal held that where safety considerations at a motor racing circuit required the demolition of a bridge, a contract permitting a newspaper the exclusive right to advertise its product on the bridge did not afford the newspaper a right to prevent removal of the bridge. In the view of the Court of Appeal the licence to advertise on that bridge was subject to an implied term that the licence would terminate if at any time it became necessary to remove or destroy the bridge, for whatever reason.

      Did you try Google?

      • Profile photo of mario123 says

        Yes I don’t know I was getting links of excerpts from the local newspaper that also goes by the name of Express Newspaper. Thanks a bunch!

  1. Profile photo of zuhayrg says

    @ Mr Mike.

    In the course notes i can see the small , fast and multi tracks systems dealing with claims 5,000 , 5000-15000 n > 15000 respectively.

    However , in the June 2013 session there was 1 question on these. The ans was 5000, 5000 – 25000 , > 25000 .

    why this change.?

    Thanks in advance n OT is really good :)

  2. avatar says

    cant seem to distiguish between the ‘bettini’ and the ‘pusaud v space v pond case’ as it relates to conditions and warrantee. intresting way of teaching, by the way! double thumbs up!

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Bettini – the breach didn’t go to the root of the contract – it wasn’t THAT important that part of the rehearsal period was missed.

      Poussard v Spiers & Pond – the breach DID go to the root – not only was the rehearsal period missed but also the first 2 of the 4 concerts were to be missed as well

Leave a Reply