設成首頁 | 加入最愛 | 新訊連結 | 聯絡律師 | 推薦朋友 | 線上投稿 | 律師簡介 | 律師諮詢 | Facebook | 隱私權聲明 更新日期:2017-03-28 文章總數:176678 瀏覽:305814671(自2000.10.1起)
點選此處可回到首頁!
法律知識庫 課程講座 法律圖書 電子報中心 回首頁
  台灣法律網新訊




歡迎免費訂閱【台灣法律往電子報】
閱讀之前,解讀自己的思維,走自己的路
與原住民族和解是台灣國家建立的核心,可惜,關心的人不多
違規廣告產品的「醫療廣告」責任?
法務部部長於憲法法庭辯論明確論及法律、人權與宗教自由等核心議題
臺北高等行政法院受理台灣通力電梯股份有限公司與臺北市政府都市發展局(106年度停字第22號)聲請停止執行事件新聞稿及裁判導讀
政府混淆原住民族傳統領域與土地權
從醫療廣告專屬醫師看刑法修正草案
【林蕙瑛專欄】重新審視個性、金錢觀、婚姻家庭價值觀及兩人的合適性
憲法法庭3月24日言詞辯論程序終結,大法官將於1個月內指定期日公布解釋
最高法院 106 年 2 月 21 日第 3 次刑事庭會議 3 次刑事庭會議決議不再供參考
透過建立法制化途徑讓每個人都有追求幸福的權利
有關臺灣新北地方法院走私毒犯聲請羈押發回更審案件新聞稿
意見表達與陳述事實之不同(最高法院105年度臺上字第745號民事判決)
民進黨政府官逼「原」反,假請客、真打劫
倘事業為競爭之目的,雖未使用他人之表徵,或使用他人之表徵未致混淆,但有攀附他人商譽等足以影響交易秩序之欺罔或顯失公平之情事,而具有商業倫理可非難性,有加以禁止之必要者,仍應以違反公平交易法第24條規定論處(最高法院105年度臺上字第81號民事判決)
關於台北地院106年度矚易字第1號分案說明新聞稿
【司法院針對民間團體就106年3月24日憲法法庭相關程序意見之說明】新聞稿
司法院職務法庭105年度懲字第3號懲戒案件判決說明新聞稿
釋字第747號解釋【土地所有權人因公路穿越地下得請求徵收地上權案】新聞稿

 台灣法律網 > 法律知識庫 > 英美法 > 美國契約法(CONTRACTS)


Vogt v. Madden  / 劉育偉
Vogt v. Madden110 Idaho 6, 713 p.2d 442 Facts: The plaintiff and defendant had an oral sharecrop agreement for the year 1979, and they renewed the agreement for the year 1980.Under the agreement, certain expenses were borne by pl ......(詳全文) 2009-10-20 02:20:00
Spaulding v. Morse  / 劉育偉
Spaulding v. Morse322 Mass. 149, 76 N.E.2d 137 Facts: George and Ruth Morse were married in 1921. Ruth obtained a decree of divorce which made provision for the custody and support of two children in 1932. It was agreed that Geor ......(詳全文) 2009-10-19 02:20:00
Ragosta v. Wilder  / 劉育偉
Ragosta v. Wilder156 Vt. 390, 592 A.2d 367 Facts: In 1987, the plaintiff mailed the defendant a letter offering to purchase the property along with a check for$2,000 and began arrangements to obtain the necessary financing. Howe ......(詳全文) 2009-10-18 02:20:00
Raffles v. Wichelhaus  / 劉育偉
Raffles v. Wichelhaus2 Hurl. &C. 906 Facts: The plaintiff sold the cotton to the defendant. And the parties agreed to transit goods by ship, which called Peerless sailed in October. But the cotton was delivered by another and ......(詳全文) 2009-10-17 02:20:00
Polaroid Corp. v. Rollins Environmental Services(NJ), Inc.  / 劉育偉
Polaroid Corp. v. Rollins Environmental Services(NJ), Inc. 416 Mass. 684, 624 N.E.2d 959. Facts: The defendant operated a waste disposal facility to dispose of hazardous waste material and the plaintiffs(Polaroid Co. and Hooke ......(詳全文) 2009-10-16 02:20:00
Phillips v. Moor  / 劉育偉
Phillips v. Moor71 Me. 78. Facts: It was a negotiation by letter that the purchase of the hay in plaintiff’s barn had pressed by the defendant and it was a written invitation to the defendant to make an offer about the hay. ......(詳全文) 2009-10-15 02:20:00
Payen v. Cave  / 劉育偉
Payen v. Cave3 Term R. 148 Facts: The plaintiff sold a certain machine by auction under usual conditions that the high bidder should be the purchaser. The defendant bid the highest bid price 40 pounds but the auctioneer dwelt and ......(詳全文) 2009-10-14 02:20:00
Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos  / 劉育偉
Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos380 So.2d 516. Facts: The defendant, a patient, had suffered serious disease to cause her doctor to order nursing care for her, and the hospital implemented this order by calling upon the plain ......(詳全文) 2009-10-13 02:20:00
MCC-Marble Ceramic Center,Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D’Agostino  / 劉育偉
MCC-Marble Ceramic Center,Inc. v. Ceramica Nuova D’Agostino144 F.3d 1384 Facts: The plaintiff is the retailer of tiles and the defendant is the manufacturer of tiles. The parties arrived at an oral agreement on the sale of ......(詳全文) 2009-10-12 02:20:00
Lucy v. Zehmer  / 劉育偉
Lucy v. Zehmer196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 Facts: Defendant wrote a note to the plaintiff, which stated that the defendant is selling their farm to the plaintiff for $50,000.  The plaintiff put the note in his pocket and offer ......(詳全文) 2009-10-11 02:20:00
Lonergan v. Scolnick  / 劉育偉
Lonergan v. Scolnick129 Cal.App.2d 179,276 P.2d 8. Facts: Defendant placed an ad for sale his land. The defendant sent a letter to plaintiff to ask his intention on March 26. On April 8, the defendant sent another letter which wa ......(詳全文) 2009-10-10 02:20:00
Lefkowitz v. Greater Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc  / 劉育偉
Lefkowitz v. Greater Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 251 Minn. 188, N.W.2d 689 Facts: The plaintiff read the ads in the newspaper for certain furs on sale on a first come first serve. The plaintiff followed and was the first ......(詳全文) 2009-10-09 02:20:00
Lawson v. Martin Timber Co.  / 劉育偉
Lawson v. Martin Timber Co.238 La. 467,115 So.2d 821 Facts: The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement which provided that the defendant had two years to cut and remove timber from plaintiff’s land, and that ......(詳全文) 2009-10-08 02:20:00
Klockner v. Green  / 劉育偉
Klockner v. Green254 A.2d 782 Facts: Plaintiffs were the stepson and stepgranddaughter of the decedent and defendants were the executor of the estate, the surviving next of kin of decedent, and a legatee under decedent’s la ......(詳全文) 2009-10-07 02:20:00
International Filter Co. v. Conroe Gin, Ice& Light Co.  / 劉育偉
International Filter Co. v. Conroe Gin, Ice& Light Co.277 S.W. 631. Facts: Plaintiff is a manufacturer of machinery for the purification of water in connection with the manufacture of ice in Chicago and defendant is engaged i ......(詳全文) 2009-10-06 02:20:00

 [1]  2
 
免 費 電 子 報
發刊期數: 3718
律 師 的 叮 嚀

貪者,不知足也。訴訟有勝有敗,得失互參,勝者未必有得,敗者未必有失,金錢之外,總有其他值得珍惜的。嬴了面子,卻失了裡子;嬴了官司,卻失了親情、家庭、婚姻、朋友,訟之凶三。

劉孟錦律師


主持律師:台灣聯合法律事務所 劉孟錦律師
地址:106 台北市大安區羅斯福路二段91號13樓(台北捷運【古亭站】3號出口) 預約律師
電話:(02)2363-5003 (代表號)  傳真:(02)2363-5009  E-mail:Lawyer885885@gmail.com
設成首頁 | 加入最愛 | 新訊連結 | 聯絡律師 | 推薦朋友 | 線上投稿 | 網站合作 | 律師簡介 | 律師諮詢 | Facebook | 隱私權聲明
法律具時效性,內容僅供參考,不宜直接引為訴訟用途,具體個案仍請洽詢專業律師
所有文章係作者之智慧,請尊重智慧財產權,轉載重製節錄請先取得本網之書面同意