Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 56 of
56
with 100 triples per page.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co abstract "British Leyland Motor Corp. v Armstrong Patents Co. is a 1986 decision of the House of Lords concerning the doctrine of non-derogation from grants. This doctrine is comparable to, but somewhat broader than, the doctrine of legal estoppel, assignor estoppel, or estoppel by deed in U.S. law. Under the doctrine of non-derogation from grants, a seller of realty or (after this decision) goods is not permitted to take any action (such as bringing an infringement action) that would lessen the value to the buyer of the thing sold. The factual context of the Leyland case was that the owner of copyright in the tailpipe of a motor car (the Leyland \"Marina\"), having sold or authorized the sale of the motor car, sought to use the law against copyright infringement to prevent the aftermarket sale of replacement tailpipes to purchasers of those motor cars. The court considered the application of other possible legal doctrines—such as implied license or \"some form of estoppel\"—but rejected them in favor of non-derogation. Lord Bridge observed: It seems to me that when one is considering machinery which is not the subject of any patent protection, it is unnecessary and may be misleading to introduce the concept of an implied license. The owner of a car must be entitled to do whatever is necessary to keep it in running order and to effect whatever repairs may be necessary in the most economical way possible. To derive this entitlement from an implied license granted by the original manufacturer seems to me quite artificial. It is a right inherent in the ownership of the car itself.There is an inconsistency between marketing cars and thereby creating whatever rights attach to their ownership on the one hand and acting to restrain the free exercise of those rights on the other. The law does not countenance such inconsistencies.In his separate opinion, Lord Templeman pointed out that an implied license might be negatived by express language, under principles of freedom of contract, but that was not so when non-derogation instead is involved: “The right cannot be withheld by the manufacturer of the car by contract with the first purchaser and cannot be withheld from any subsequent owner.” That is, the nature of property makes the right inherent and not a matter of freedom of contract.This case appears to be the first one extending the non-derogation doctrine from cases involving realty to cases involving personal property (chattels). Lord Templeman seems to have recognized this point in his opinion. After describing the operation of the principle in various types of case involving land, he stated: \" I see no reason why the principle that a grantor will not be allowed to derogate from his grant [of land] by using property retained by him in such a way as to render property granted by him unfit or materially unfit for the purpose for which the grant was made should not apply to the sale of a car.\" This decision also re-affirmed the ruling in LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd., stating that the rule of the Swish decision must now be regarded as \"settled law\" (that is, that under UK copyright law a physical object is an infringing copy of a technical drawing depicting the object).".
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co thumbnail MorrisDeTail.jpg?width=300.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageID "20522638".
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageLength "15918".
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageOutDegree "31".
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageRevisionID "702864423".
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Aftermarket_(automotive).
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Assignor_estoppel.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink British_Leyland.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Canon_Kabushiki_Kaisha_v_Green_Cartridge_Co_(Hong_Kong)_Ltd.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Case_citation.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Category:1986_in_British_law.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Category:1986_in_case_law.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Category:British_Leyland.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Category:Copyright_case_law.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Category:House_of_Lords_cases.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Doctrine_of_non-derogation_from_grants.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Edmund_Davies,_Baron_Edmund-Davies.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Estoppel.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Estoppel_by_deed.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Hugh_Griffiths,_Baron_Griffiths.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink LB_(Plastics)_Ltd_v_Swish_Products_Ltd.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Legal_estoppel.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Leslie_Scarman,_Baron_Scarman.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Morris_Marina.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Nigel_Bridge,_Baron_Bridge_of_Harwich.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Personal_property.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Real_property.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink Sydney_Templeman,_Baron_Templeman.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLink File:MorrisDeTail.jpg.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageWikiLinkText "British Leyland Motor Corp v Armstrong Patents Co".
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co citations Case_citation.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co court Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co judges Edmund_Davies,_Baron_Edmund-Davies.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co judges Hugh_Griffiths,_Baron_Griffiths.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co judges Leslie_Scarman,_Baron_Scarman.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co judges Nigel_Bridge,_Baron_Bridge_of_Harwich.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co judges Sydney_Templeman,_Baron_Templeman.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co name "British Leyland Motor Corp. v Armstrong Patents Co.".
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:Infobox_court_case.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:Reflist.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co subject Category:1986_in_British_law.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co subject Category:1986_in_case_law.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co subject Category:British_Leyland.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co subject Category:Copyright_case_law.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co subject Category:House_of_Lords_cases.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co type Redirect.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co comment "British Leyland Motor Corp. v Armstrong Patents Co. is a 1986 decision of the House of Lords concerning the doctrine of non-derogation from grants. This doctrine is comparable to, but somewhat broader than, the doctrine of legal estoppel, assignor estoppel, or estoppel by deed in U.S. law.".
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co label "British Leyland Motor Corp v Armstrong Patents Co".
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co sameAs Q4970252.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co sameAs m.012ds7lv.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co sameAs Q4970252.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co wasDerivedFrom British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co?oldid=702864423.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co depiction MorrisDeTail.jpg.
- British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co isPrimaryTopicOf British_Leyland_Motor_Corp_v_Armstrong_Patents_Co.