Lindsay, B. (2016) Penalty clauses in the Supreme Court: a legitimately interesting decision? Edinburgh Law Review, 20(2), pp. 204-210. (doi: 10.3366/elr.2016.0342)
|
Text
152834.pdf - Accepted Version 540kB |
Abstract
The joint appeals in Cavendish Square Holdings v El Makdessi and Beavis v ParkingEye 1 offered the UK Supreme Court its first opportunity – since moving across Parliament Square – to consider the penalty doctrine. The exercise of judicial control over contractually stipulated remedies has long been controversial and the joint appeals presented an opportunity either to modernise the doctrine's principles or to repudiate it entirely from English law.
| Item Type: | Articles |
|---|---|
| Status: | Published |
| Refereed: | Yes |
| Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: | Lindsay, Mr Bobby |
| Authors: | Lindsay, B. |
| College/School: | College of Social Sciences > School of Law |
| Journal Name: | Edinburgh Law Review |
| Publisher: | Edinburgh University Press |
| ISSN: | 1364-9809 |
| ISSN (Online): | 1755-1692 |
| Copyright Holders: | Copyright © 2016 Edinburgh Law Review Trust and the Contributors |
| First Published: | First published in Edinburgh Law Review 20(2): 204-210 |
| Publisher Policy: | Reproduced in accordance with the publisher copyright policy |
University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record
Deposit and Record Details
Deposit and Record Details