This is one of those "speak to competent legal counsel" kinds of questions, but the basic answer would be "no". However, that doesn't end the matter. The question for you is, "is the problem bad enough that you are willing to go to court and sue for damages?" Did the seller promise to repair the water heater, and it turns out to be still broken and unrepairable? Probably not worth the hassle. Get a new one and move on. However, that 100' long deepwater dock that was the major reason you bought that $2 million house, and it turns out that it's unsafe and the county won't allow repairs is an entirely different matter. The house may now be worth far less than you paid, and you may not be able to use the property as you had originally intended. You need a good real estate lawyer. The "Reasonable person theory" applies here. If you do decide that the reasonable thing is to get a lawyer and fight it out, you should get one that specializes in real estate law.
The ruling was that the contract could be rescinded, because both parties believed the coin was genuine at the time of sale and since it turns out it wasn't the contract can be considered void.
Generally parties are bound by a contract in the Philippines unless the contract is rescinded. If two entities enter a contract and both agree that they are no longer interested in pursuing the endeavor, they can agree to breach the contract.
An offer to contract may be rescinded at any time prior to acceptance, where that includes any manifestation of assent that can be reasonably interpreted as acceptance of a particular agreement.
haydn's contract showed he was considered what
If you opt out and have the right to do so it is considered terminating a contract. If you unilaterally decide to opt out of a contract and do not have a legal basis to do so; that is considered a breach of contract. If you breach a legal contract you can be sued.
It depends on whether both sides gave new consideration (something in exchange for something). If only one party did something different under the contract, then it is gratuitous and only the original contract is legitimate. If both parties offered something new to the contract then there is a new contract formed and the old contract is thrown out.
An advertising brochure is not considered a contract. It also typically has a lot of fine print indicating this. It is an offer that is usually contingent on availability. It can be really frustrating to show up and want something to discover that they don't have it.
A legal entity is considered a person for purposes of a contract. Corporations and companies are legally considered a person.
It is aspects of a contract that is automatically considered as part of the contract with out the parties discuss it.
Make direct contact with the company that wanted to hire you. If there is no contract between the employment service and the company that wanted to hire you, then the employment service has no restriction on what you do or what the company does.
No, a changed contract is not considered a new contract as it is an amendment or modification of the original agreement. The changes made are typically done to update or adjust certain terms or conditions of the existing contract without creating an entirely new agreement.
to what extent does social contract theory are considered to as classicsl democrtic theory?