Academic literature on the topic 'Instalment price'

Sultana, Shirin, Abu Hashan Md Mashud, Yosef Daryanto, Sujan Miah, Adel Alrasheedi, and Ibrahim M. Hezam. "The Role of the Discount Policy of Prepayment on Environmentally Friendly Inventory Management." Fractal and Fractional 6, no. 1 (January 2, 2022): 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6010026.

Böhler, Elisabeth. "BGH, Urteil vom 22.12.1999 — Zur “Ablieferung” der Kaufsache beim Kauf von Standard-Software." European Review of Private Law 10, Issue 5 (October 1, 2002): 709–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/5103430.

Chirica, Simona. "‘Green’ obligations regarding new constructions and their impact on the real-estate market." Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence 13, no. 1 (May 1, 2019): 560–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2019-0049.

Budiharseno, Rianmahardhika Sahid. "Determining Factors on the Repurchase Decision on Low End Smartphones in Asia Pacific Regions: An Indonesian Case." Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 10, no. 4 (July 8, 2021): 154. http://dx.doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2021-0106.

Saad-Filho, Alfredo, and Ben Fine. "Twixt Ricardo and Rubin: Debating Kincaid Once More." Historical Materialism 17, no. 3 (2009): 192–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/146544609x12469428108628.

Kaur, Gurpreet, and Arunava Majumder. "A Comparative study and efficiency analysis between Sanchez and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods in a multi-criteria decision-making problem for energy plant instalment." Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2267, no. 1 (May 1, 2022): 012082. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2267/1/012082.

Lowe, Vaughan, and Robin Churchill. "The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2001." International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 17, no. 4 (2002): 463–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157180802x00189.

BEATON, J., and G. TOLHURST. "DEBT, DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION." Cambridge Law Journal 57, no. 2 (July 1998): 235–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197398280019.

Balsom, Erika. "John Smith’s Covid Messages." Moving Image Review & Art Journal (MIRAJ) 9, no. 2 (September 1, 2020): 222–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/miraj_00045_1.

Taylor, J. C., and A. W. Wolfendale. "John Harrison: clockmaker and Copley Medalist. A public memorial at last." Notes and Records of the Royal Society 61, no. 1 (January 2, 2007): 53–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2006.0164.

Blyth, Michael. In the Mouth of Madness. Liverpool University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.3828/liverpool/9781911325406.001.0001.

Pryce, Huw. "Cultural Revival and Romantic History." In Writing Welsh History, 239–64. Oxford University Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198746034.003.0011.

Baskind, Eric. "8. Delivery, acceptance, and payment." In Commercial Law Concentrate, 111–25. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198840619.003.0008.

Baskind, Eric. "8. Delivery, acceptance, and payment." In Commercial Law Concentrate. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198803843.003.0008.

Baskind, Eric. "8. Delivery, acceptance, and payment." In Commercial Law Concentrate, 117–33. Oxford University Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780192897206.003.0008.

"first is under an entire performance obligation. An early example of this can be found in the old case of Cutter v Powell, under which a seaman agreed to work a ship from its port of embarkation to its destination and back in return for a fixed sum. In the absence of a doctrine of frustration, it was held that, if the round trip was not completed, for whatever reason, the seaman did not become entitled to payment. In other instances, performance obligations on one side may be subdivided with the result that as each part of the total obligation is completed, the other party comes under an obligation to perform his side of the contract. In these circumstances, the performance obligations are described as severable. Typical examples can be found in construction contracts which provide for payment in stages as the work progresses or instalment contracts for the sale of goods under which the buyer is required to pay separately for each instalment as it is delivered. The importance of the distinction between entire and severable obligations is that there are different rules as to the order of performance and in respect of the matter of defective performance. If the seller is under an entire obligation to deliver goods at a particular time, and he fails to do so, the buyer will not be obliged to pay the price. Conversely, if there is a severable instalment contract for the sale of goods and the seller fails to deliver one instalment out of ten, the seller may be able to claim payment for those parts of the work correctly performed. Generally, sale of goods contracts consist of entire obligations. If the seller delivers less or more than the quantity of goods contracted for, the buyer is entitled to reject the entire consignment, subject to minor deviations in which case the court has a discretion in non-consumer transactions to refuse to allow rejection if this remedy can be regarded as unreasonable: Sale of Goods Act 1979." In Sourcebook on Contract Law, 513–14. Routledge-Cavendish, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781843141518-209.

"agreement to sell land for £500,000, the price to be paid in three instalments of £250,000, £125,000 and £125,000. It was further agreed that a proportionate part of the land would be released at each payment date. The parties had made no provision for allocation of the proportionate parts, with the result that the contract was held to be void for uncertainty. In these circumstances, no actual benefit, apart from a mere expectation, would have been conferred on either party; therefore, there was no urgent need to look for an implied solution. EXPRESS TERMS." In Sourcebook on Contract Law, 277. Routledge-Cavendish, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781843141518-110.

"The approach adopted here appears to be reasonable at first glance. However, quite apart from the specific difficulties it causes in relation to contracts made via standard forms, there are, on closer examination, some difficulties with the basic approach. It appears to envisage that all contractual negotiations are ‘cut and dried’, so that each party in turn stakes out their position and (normally) wholly rejects the position of the other (if they do not unconditionally accept it). The reality of most negotiations is, of course, very different – an offeree may wish to accept the basic proposal of another whilst introducing modifications, say, as to time of delivery, or payment by instalments. The rigidity of the basic model adopted by English law does not readily allow for this, in that any significant modification contained in a proposed acceptance will be seen as a counter-offer (to be valid, an acceptance must be unconditional) and as a rejection of the original offer. The law does not seem to provide for ‘in principle’ acceptances or commitments. One slight qualification to the above is that a mere enquiry will not be viewed as a counter-offer – an offeree can request information about the offer without rejecting it (although without some subsequent unconditional acceptance, there will equally be no contract and the offer may eventually lapse or be revoked). The point is demonstrated well in the case of Stevenson, Jacques and Co v McLean. The defendant, being possessed of warrants for iron, wrote from London to the plaintiff at Middlesborough, asking whether they could get him an offer for the warrants. Further correspondence ensued and, ultimately, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff fixing 40 s per ton net cash as the lowest price at which he could sell, stating that he would hold the offer open till the following Monday. The plaintiff, on Monday morning at 9.42 am, telegraphed to the defendant: ‘Please wire whether you would accept 40 for delivery over two months or, if not, longest limit you could give.’ The defendant sent no answer to this telegram and, after its receipt on the same day, he sold the warrants and, at 1.25 pm, telegraphed to plaintiff that he had done so. Before the arrival of his telegram to that effect, the plaintiff, having at 1 pm found a purchaser for the iron, sent a telegram at 1.34 pm to the defendant, stating that they had secured his price. The defendant refused to deliver the iron and the plaintiff brought an action against him for non-delivery. Lush J, at first instance, found that a binding contract had come into being at 1.34 pm: Stevenson, Jacques and Co v McLean (1880) 5 QB 346, p 349." In Sourcebook on Contract Law, 99–100. Routledge-Cavendish, 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781843141518-30.

Putriastuti, Massita Ayu Cindy, Vivi Fitriyanti, and Muhammad Razin Abdullah. Leveraging the Potential of Crowdfunding for Financing Renewable Energy. Purnomo Yusgiantoro Center, June 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.33116/br.002.