How have courts interpreted the terms of a composition deed?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from McLean v. Garland, 1884 CanLII 15 (ON CA):
The first is the case of Harrhy v. Wall, 1 B. & Al. 103, and merely decides that when a creditor signs and seals a composition deed, although he does not set the amount of his debt opposite to his name, yet he is bound by them terms of the composition to the amount of his then existing debt.
"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 principles of the Court of Arbitration for the purpose of making decisions at an arbitrator rather than the court? (Ontario, Canada)
How have courts dealt with the issue of composition of a composition deed? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the court interpreted the terms of an employee’s contract of employment and what is the effect of the changes in terms of their duties? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will an arbitrator be bound to follow the interpretation of Arbitrator Starkman’s interpretation of the Interpretation of the Arbitrator's Interpretation in a dispute? (Ontario, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the term "financial interest" in the context of a contested will? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the court interpreted section 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines and interpreted the meaning of the word "intentionally" in relation to child support? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for a court to determine if a parent who has been ordered to pay child protection funds for the past 10 years will not comply with the terms of the court order? (Ontario, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the provisions in the closing deed of a real estate transaction? (Ontario, Canada)
How have courts in B.C. dealt with the issue of long term fixed-term employment contracts? (Ontario, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the ambiguous "fixed term" contract? (Ontario, Canada)
