How have the courts interpreted the meaning of a contract where the contract is expressly or implication forbidden by common or statute law?
Alberta, Canada
The following excerpt is from Andersen v. Sinclair, 1976 CanLII 282 (AB QB):
Parke B. in Cope v. Rowlands (1836), 6 L.J. Ex. 63, 2 M. & W. 149 at 157, 150 E.R. 707, says: “It is perfectly settled, that where the contract which the plaintiff seeks to enforce, be it express or implied, is expressly or by implication forbidden by the common or statute law, no court will lend its assistance to give it effect.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the word "contract" in the context of an enforceable contract? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a fire insurance contract? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the meaning of the word “right and true” in the context of a contract? (Alberta, Canada)
How has the Court of Appeal interpreted the meaning of the word unanimous? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the meaning of a contract law case in contract law? (Alberta, Canada)
Is there any common law common law concept or common law relation to corporate shields or corporate vale? (Alberta, Canada)
How has the court interpreted the "necessary implication" doctrine in adding words in a will? (Alberta, Canada)
How has contract law been interpreted in the context of tenders in construction contracts? (Alberta, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the Charter and the role of the courts? (Alberta, Canada)
Can a court order all court-ordered sales of a personal injury property be exempt from all court ordered sales? (Alberta, Canada)
