rationale behind rule in Maine

2017See Wal-Noon Corp. v. Hill, 119 Cal. Rptr. 646, 651 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (“[W]here the parties have freely, fairly and voluntarily bargained for certain benefits in exchange for undertaking certain obligations, it would be inequitable to imply a different liability and to withdraw from one party benefits for which he has bargained and to which he is entitled.”). [¶14] Because of the “failed” mortgage, the only contract between the parties is the promissory note, and most of the expenses at issue here were not paid or recoverable pursuant to that note.

2017See Wal-Noon Corp. v. Hill, 119 Cal. Rptr. 646, 651 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (“[W]here the parties have freely, fairly and voluntarily bargained for certain benefits in exchange for undertaking certain obligations, it would be inequitable to imply a different liability and to withdraw from one party benefits for which he has bargained and to which he is entitled.”). [¶14] Because of the “failed” mortgage, the only contract between the parties is the promissory note, and most of the expenses at issue here were not paid or recoverable pursuant to that note.

2000Hopkins v. Madeiros, 724 N.E.2d 336, 341 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).

1998Webb v. Webb, 171 W.Va. 614, 301 S.E.2d 570, 574 (1983); see also Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andre Limozin (Dec. 22, 1787), in Papers of Thomas Jefferson, at 451 (Julian P. Boyd ed., 1955) (“Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country.

1998Webb v. Webb, 171 W.Va. 614, 301 S.E.2d 570, 574 (1983); see also Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Andre Limozin (Dec. 22, 1787), in Papers of Thomas Jefferson, at 451 (Julian P. Boyd ed., 1955) (“Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country.

1989See also Pine Gravel, Inc. v. Cianchette, 128 N.H. 460 , 514 A.2d 1282, 1285 (1986) (explaining that there is a difference between the duty to arbitrate under a general arbitration clause and the right to protect a mechanic’s lien).

1989See also Pine Gravel, Inc. v. Cianchette, 128 N.H. 460 , 514 A.2d 1282, 1285 (1986) (explaining that there is a difference between the duty to arbitrate under a general arbitration clause and the right to protect a mechanic’s lien).

1989In Harris v. Dyer, 50 Or.App. 223 , 623 P.2d 662 (1981), the Oregon Court of Appeals explained the rationale behind the rule, stating that there is a difference “between the right to secure payment of amounts claimed and the obligation to resolve any dispute as to the amounts claimed in a particular manner.” Id. 623 P.2d at 665 (emphasis in original).

1989In Harris v. Dyer, 50 Or.App. 223 , 623 P.2d 662 (1981), the Oregon Court of Appeals explained the rationale behind the rule, stating that there is a difference “between the right to secure payment of amounts claimed and the obligation to resolve any dispute as to the amounts claimed in a particular manner.” Id. 623 P.2d at 665 (emphasis in original).

1981In Nason v. Ricker, 63 Me. 381, 382-83 (1873), we stated: The owner had a right to redeem each of those [separate] lots by paying the taxes specifically assessed thereon, without being obliged to pay the tax assessed upon the other lot also, which constituted no lien upon the lot he might wish to redeem.