header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Law in 101 words

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
06 October 2017 / Roderick Ramage
Issue: 7764 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Snippets from The Reduced Law Dictionary, by Roderick Ramage

Agreement to agree

Lord Ackner in Walford v Miles (1992) said that the reason why an agreement to agree is unenforceable, is that it lacks the necessary certainty. In May v R (1934) an agreement to supply goods at ‘prices to be agreed from time to time’ was held not to be a contract, but it was different in Foley v Classic Coaches (1934), in which one party was to provide petrol at ‘prices to be agreed’. Petrol supply was part of a larger agreement, petrol had been supplied without difficultly for three years and the arbitration clause could cover any failure to agree.

London’s early fire regulations

On 24 July 1212, following a calamitous fire in the city, the mayor Henry fitz Ailwin made regulations, including a prohibition of thatched roofs and a requirement for walls and existing thatched roofs to be plastered, and power to pull down houses that were not rebuilt accordingly within eight days no matter to whom they belong without

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
DAC Beachcroft—Ben Daniels

DAC Beachcroft—Ben Daniels

Firm elects new senior partner to lead next phase of growth

Taylor Rose—Amarjit Ryatt

Taylor Rose—Amarjit Ryatt

Partner appointed head of family and divorce

Browne Jacobson—Adam Berry & Adam Culy

Browne Jacobson—Adam Berry & Adam Culy

Financial and professional risks team expand with dual partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Alarm bells over Mazur
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Jury trial & a constitutional illusion
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
NLJ this week: The rise—and risks—of going private
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
NLJ this week: Human rights disputes push courts to redefine their role
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Debarment orders—shortcut or minefield?
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll