999 resultados para Marine insurance


Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Includes bibliographies and index.

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Issued in 2 pt.: Pt. I, Fire and marine insurance; pt. II, Life, casualty and assessment insurance.

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Issued In Two Parts: Pt. i, Fire and Marine Insurance; Pt. Ii, Life and Miscellaneous Insurance

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Mode of access: Internet.

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Reports for 1895-1914 have each pt. issued as separate vol.: pt. 1. Fire and marine insurance; pt. 2. Life and casualty insurance; 1897-1915, pt. 3. Local mutual fire insurance.

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Issued in 2 pt.: Pt. I, Fire and marine insurance; pt. II, Life, casualty and assessment insurance

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

"An analytical digest of adjusting practices, procedures, legislative history, legal principles, decisions, definitions and insurance coverages in the field of transportation insurance."

Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

This paper explores the law of accidental mixtures of goods. It traces the development of the English rules on mixture from the seminal nineteenth century case of Spence v Union Marine Insurance Co to the present day, and compares their responses to those given by the Roman law, which always has been claimed as an influence on our jurisprudence in this area. It is argued that the different answers given by English and Roman law to essentially the same problems of title result from the differing bases of these legal systems. Roman a priori theory is contrasted with the more practical reasoning of the common law, and while both sets of rules are judged to be coherent on their own terms, it is suggested that the difference between them is reflective of a more general philosophical disagreement about the proper functioning of a legal system, and the relative importance of theoretical and pragmatic considerations.