Example sentences of "[be] hold that [pron] [be] " in BNC.

  Next page
No Sentence
1 Thus it has been held that there was a course of dealing where the parties contracted three or four times per month for three years ( Kendall v Lillico ) and where there had been 81 transactions over a period of six years ( SIAT di del Ferro v Tradax Overseas SA [ 1978 ] 2 Lloyd 's Rep 470 ) , but not where there had been only three or four contracts over a five-year period ( Hollier v Rambler Motors ( AMC ) Ltd [ 1972 ] 2 QB 71 ; in addition the alleged course of dealing was not consistent ) .
2 The defence has been considered in a number of recent cases in which it has been held that it is to be applied in a flexible and pragmatic way .
3 Once the process is posted to defendant 's address , if it is not returned by the Post Office , it is deemed to have been delivered , ( see s 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 ) ; thus applications by defendants will generally seek to show , by affidavit , that the defendant was away from the a ddress , for example , abroad or on a prolonged holiday ; it has been held that he is not entitled to have the judgment set aside ex debito justitiae .
4 It was held that they were entitled to do so on the basis that a public house licence authorises the holder to sell by retail alcoholic liquor for consumption on or off the premises and an off-sale licence authorises the holder to sell by retail alcoholic liquor for consumption off the premises .
5 It was held that they were not entitled to do so ; the express reference to one particular form of late payment impliedly excluded other late payments from the reference to " any breach of this charterparty " .
6 Rigge v. Bell ( 1793 ) 5 Durn. & E. 471 a parol agreement for a seven-year lease did not comply with the Statute of Frauds 1677 but the tenant entered and paid a yearly rent and it was held that he was tenant from year to year on the terms of the agreement .
7 In an action against the original lessee for the balance of the outstanding rent , it was held that he was not absolved as a consequence of the order made in the suit against the assignee .
8 Owing to the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 C could not rely upon a simple conspiracy to injure but in the House of Lords it was held that he was entitled to succeed on the ground of intimidation .
9 It was held that he was entitled to do this .
10 It was held that he was not entitled to claim his travelling expenses from the advertiser .
11 It was held that he was entitled to the return of the price , on the ground that he had suffered a ‘ total failure of consideration . ’
12 It was held that he was treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the shop 's rights contrary to s.6(1) .
13 It was held that he was properly indicted with stealing from the company because a person or company in control of the site is deemed prima facie to have control over things on the land .
14 It was held that he was not guilty of theft because there was no such special arrangement as would give rise to the obligation in s.5(3) .
15 It was held that he was not a trustee of the money for the brewers and therefore he was under no obligation to deal with it in a certain way .
16 It was held that he was not guilty .
17 For further discussion of " facilities of the same or similar kind " , see Collins v. Hamilton District Licensing Board , 1984 S.L.T. 230 , where it was held that it is the facilities which have to be the same or similar , not the type of licence .
18 In the case of R v Spurge [ 1961 ] 2 All ER 688 it was held that it was at least careless driving where the driver took a vehicle on a road , knowing there was a defect such as defective steering or brakes .
19 In 1872 , it was held that it was similarly rape to have intercourse with a sleeping woman .
20 In Dare it was held that it was for the trier of fact to determine whether an assault was a sexual assault , having regard to all the circumstances involved .
21 on appeal from a taxation it was held that it was wrong to depress hourly rates to justify an unjustifiable mark-up. a mark-up in excess of 100% had to be justified by showing that the case was exceptional .
22 It was held that it was not copra cake at all but a substance quite different to that contracted for and , because of this , the sellers could not rely on an exclusion clause purporting to exempt them from liability .
23 In Greaves [ 1987 ] The Times , 11 July , it was held that it was a question for the jury whether a gap of 17 days between burglary and handling meant that the accused was not the burglar and so could be convicted of handling .
24 If a planning authority wished to restrict its activities , it was held that it was only right for the extra costs to be reimbursed .
25 It was held that it was not fair for the plaintiff to rely upon clause 10 to enable him to escape from the consequences of a clear misrepresentation on an important matter which had induced the defendants to exchange contracts even though the representation was not repeated in the contract .
26 In Nielson-Jones v Fedden [ 1975 ] Ch 222 it was held that it was not sufficient for the husband and wife to sign a memorandum to the effect that the husband was to have a free hand to sell the property and use the money to buy a new house for himself although in Burgess v Rawnsley [ 1975 ] Ch 429 it was held that a beneficial joint tenancy was severed by the oral agreement of one joint tenant to sell her share in the property to the other even though that agreement was not specifically enforceable .
27 Thus , it was held that there was no need for a fight — in the sense of two willing participants attacking one another — actually to take place as part of the offence ; where one person was attacking another and the public fear was sufficiently aroused , it should not be a defence for the attacker to assert that his victim was acting in self defence .
28 Although she had not bought the smoke ball from the Company , it was held that there was a contract between her and the Company , albeit not a contract of sale .
29 It was held that there was a contract of sale of goods and that the sellers could sue for the outstanding balance of the price .
30 It was held that there was no breach of the condition implied by the Sale of Goods Act as to merchantable quality , because the pellets were still saleable , albeit at a reduced price .
  Next page