Storer v Manchester City Council, also known as the Storer case, was a legal decision issued by the European Court of Human Rights in 1974. It concerned the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights, which is a treaty that sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals in the member states of the Council of Europe.
The case arose when Mr. Storer, a British citizen, was arrested and charged with theft in Manchester, England. Mr. Storer argued that he had not received a fair trial because the judge in his case had not informed him of his right to legal representation, as required under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case made its way to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in favor of Mr. Storer, finding that his right to a fair trial had been violated. The Court held that the judge's failure to inform Mr. Storer of his right to legal representation constituted a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it violated the principle of equality of arms, which requires that both the prosecution and the defense have a fair opportunity to present their case.
The Storer case is significant because it established that individuals have the right to legal representation in criminal proceedings, and that this right is protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision has had a lasting impact on the legal systems of European countries, and has helped to ensure that individuals accused of crimes are afforded a fair and just trial.
In conclusion, the Storer case was a crucial decision issued by the European Court of Human Rights that helped to establish the right to legal representation as a fundamental principle of fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. It has had a lasting impact on the legal systems of European countries, and has helped to ensure that individuals accused of crimes are afforded a fair and just trial.
Storer v Manchester City Council [1974] 1 WLR 1403
On 15th November, 1970, he filled in a request for information asking for the price and the details of any mortgage. The lower court had decided that intention to bind was there, and that filling in the date was a mere administrative formality; a firm offer was there. Facts: The defendant Manchester City Council was refusing to continue with a sale of a residential property to the claimant, Storer. The case concerns offer and acceptance for the formation of a contract. The plaintiff had signed the form sent to him by the council, and only the date when lease would be regarded as having ceased and mortgage payments would commence was left open on the form. The lower court had decided that intention to bind was there, and that filling in the date was a mere administrative formality; a firm offer was there.
Carlil & Carbolic
Both made it to the Court of Appeal, and Gibson the House of Lords, even though they were fairly simple cases of offer and acceptance. Now in many cases tenants had filled in carious forms applying to buy their houses, but the contracts of sale had not been exchanged. CAULFIELD, instructed by Messrs. You look at what he said and did. If you will sign the agreement and return it to me, I will send you the agreement signed on behalf of the Corporation in exchange. . So this case of Mr.
Contract Law
Supplying information o Harvey telegraphed to Facey and asked whether they would sell them bumper hall pen. They had only left blank the date when the tenancy would cease and mortgage repayments would commence. However, no contract will arise if the communication is made by a third-party without the authority of the offeree in circumstances indicating that the offeree's decision to accept was not yet regarded by him as irrevocable. So he wrote this letter to the tenants:- 6 Mr. From the enclosed list of solicitors, who ore prepared to act for you and advise you on the purchase, please let me know the name of the firm that you select, as soon as possible. Would he definitely go ahead with the mortgage that was offered? Gibson completed the purchase form and left the section of the price blank because there was uncertainty as to what it would be and returned to the council. Held: It was determined by Lord Denning that the contract was formed despite missing the term of date.
