Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorO'Sullivan, Janet
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-22T23:30:49Z
dc.date.available2022-06-22T23:30:49Z
dc.identifier.issn0023-933X
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/338310
dc.description.abstractTHIS paper explores a controversy that arises from the decision of the Supreme Court in Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd (“Marks & Spencer”), in which Lord Neuberger (with whom Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge agreed) rejected Lord Hoffmann’s approach to implied terms in fact, set out in Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd (“Belize”), that the process of implying terms in fact is an aspect of interpretation. For Lord Neuberger, this assimilation of interpretation and implication “could obscure the fact that construing the words used and implying additional words are different processes governed by different rules”.
dc.publisherSweet and Maxwell
dc.rightsAll Rights Reserved
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
dc.titleImplied terms in fact and evidence of prior negotiations: an exploration
dc.typeArticle
dc.publisher.departmentFaculty of Law
dc.date.updated2022-06-22T09:24:05Z
prism.publicationNameThe Law Quarterly Review
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.85719
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-06-20
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
cam.orpheus.counter22*
cam.depositDate2022-06-22
pubs.licence-identifierapollo-deposit-licence-2-1
pubs.licence-display-nameApollo Repository Deposit Licence Agreement
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2025-06-22


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record