Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q17108421> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 25 of
25
with 100 triples per page.
- Q17108421 subject Q6996562.
- Q17108421 subject Q6998802.
- Q17108421 subject Q7320569.
- Q17108421 subject Q8882926.
- Q17108421 abstract "Template:Infobox court caseTunkl. v. Regents of the University of California [1] was a leading case in California that established a persuasive six-factor test that helps guide courts to decide when a contract relates to the "public interest."Specifically, California courts had a history of holding exculpatory liability waivers within contracts to be valid only if they did not involve the "public interest." This case history arose in relation to Cal. Civ. Code §1668, a statute that states "All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law." Cal. Civ. Code § 1668. At the time, it was difficult to gauge exactly what the courts meant by interpreting this statute to apply fervently to contracts "in the public interest." Tunkl helped clarify this, though there is still a debate as to how many of the six factors must be met, or whether certain factors should be read to be subservient to others.According to Tunkl, the six factors that determine, in the instance, whether a contract relates to the public interest are:1) "The party seeking exculpation is engaged in performing a service of great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity for some members of the public."2) "The party holds himself out as willing to perform this service for any member of the public who seeks it, or at least for any member coming within certain established standards."3) "As a result of the essential nature of the service, in the economic setting of the transaction, the party invoking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage of bargaining strength against any member of the public who seeks his services."4) "In exercising a superior bargaining power the party confronts the public with a standardized adhesion contract of exculpation . . .5) . . . and makes no provision whereby a purchaser may pay additional reasonable fees and obtain protection against negligence."6) "Finally, as a result of the transaction, the person or property of the purchaser is placed under the control of the seller, subject to the risk of carelessness by the seller or his agents."If a contract both meets these factors and includes liability waivers, it may be held to be invalid and unenforceable as a matter of law and policy.".
- Q17108421 wikiPageExternalLink 92.html.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q1303850.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q1344851.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q160070.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q21069584.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q308922.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q3439116.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q6517577.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q654437.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q6773564.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q6996562.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q6998802.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q7152902.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q7182367.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q7320569.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q797551.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q8882926.
- Q17108421 wikiPageWikiLink Q99.
- Q17108421 comment "Template:Infobox court caseTunkl. v. Regents of the University of California [1] was a leading case in California that established a persuasive six-factor test that helps guide courts to decide when a contract relates to the "public interest."Specifically, California courts had a history of holding exculpatory liability waivers within contracts to be valid only if they did not involve the "public interest." This case history arose in relation to Cal. Civ.".
- Q17108421 label "Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California".