Your conclusion may affect your view on whether the Supreme
Court accomplished its purpose (whatever you believe that purpose to have been).
Not exact matches
The
Court held that the case was governed by the case of Shea v. Bay State Gas Co., 383 Mass. 218, 222 (1981), which held that «[c] ontracts of indemnity are to be fairly and reasonably construed in order to ascertain the intention of the parties and to effectuate the
purpose sought to be
accomplished.»
To
accomplish this
purpose, the
court requires the defendant to pay money to the plaintiff.
Appealing phases of these vague contour provisions can be judicially integrated to provide a variety of techniques to
accomplish a single
purpose, the protection of business against legislative regulations obnoxious to
courts.
But I suspect that this is symbolic legislation which will have
accomplished its
purpose long before the Supreme
Court of Canada gets round to restating the division between section 91 and section 92 as it applies to collective bargaining and the activities of unions.
In the furtherance of the foregoing powers, the general
court shall have the power to provide for the taking, upon payment of just compensation therefor, or for the acquisition by purchase or otherwise, of lands and easements or such other interests therein as may be deemed necessary to
accomplish these
purposes.
See, e.g., Taylor v. Taylor, 508 A. 2d 964, 970 (Md. 1986)(discussing the equitable powers of Maryland
courts to enter joint custody orders, and observing that «the power of the
court is very broad so that it may
accomplish the paramount
purpose of securing the welfare and promoting the best interest of the child»).