Contract (136)
HELD:
"While oral agreement has the legal capacity to re-order or change the contents of an earlier written agreement, to satisfy the basic requirements of an agreement, the party alleging such agreement must prove it.
HELD:
"The most important and pungnant word for my purpose is "understood". Parties to an agreement may mutually but wrongly come to an understanding as to the legal content of it.
HELD:
"It is implicit in the doctrine of frustration that the parties did not default in aborting the contract. See S.E.CO.LTD V NB.C.I. (Supra). If there was default then the doctrine of frustration could not be invoked." See ADDAX PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (NIG) LTD v. LOYCY INVESTMENT CO. LTD & ANOR(2017) LPELR-42522(CA)Per AWOTOYE, J.C.A. (P. 15, Para. C)
HELD:
"In S.E.CO. LTD v N.B.C.I. (2006) 7 NWLR (PT 978) 198, Oguntade J.S.C. explained it thus:- "The doctrine of frustration simply means that if the performance of a contract depends on the continued existence of a state of affairs, when the destruction or disappearance of the state of affairs without the default of either of the parties will discharge them from the contract.
HELD:
"Both parties and the trial Court are correct in agreeing that the provisions of the Convention for the Unification for Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air 1999 (the Montreal Convention) apply to air travel in Nigeria, this is the effect of the provisions of Section 77 (1) & (2) of the Civil Aviation Act of 2006, which repealed the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and gave the Montreal Convention force of law.
HELD:
"The main ground for disagreement is whether the limitation of liability on the Appellant's part to $1,000.00 (One Thousand Dollars only) as provided in Articles 22(2) of the Montreal Convention apply to the circumstances of this appeal.
HELD:
"Assuming the Respondent agreed that his roof be removed (which I doubt), an agreement to do that which is a crime or a tort is illegal and will not be enforced by the Courts. EGERTON V EARL BROWNLOW 1853, 2. H. L. CASES 1 @ 196; JANSON V DRIEFORTEIN CONSOLIDATED MINES LTD 1902 A. C. 484 @ 491." See CHUKWUMA & ORS v. AWOH (2018) LPELR-44830(CA) Per PEMU, J.C.A. (P. 11, Paras. E-F)
HELD:
"From the facts as found by the trial judge and the intention of the parties as revealed in the Exhibit "C" series particularly Exhibit 'C3', 'C4' and 'C8', it appears to me to be a clear case of surety-ship. Again, I will rely on Chitty for elucidation.
HELD:
"...One may ask, what about consideration like the appellants counsel wondered in his submissions thoughtfully.
HELD:
"From the facts as found by the trial judge and the intention of the parties as revealed in the Exhibit "C" series particularly Exhibit 'C3', 'C4' and 'C8', it appears to me to be a clear case of surety-ship. Again, I will rely on Chitty for elucidation.
