compare contract avoidance and Anfechtung (challenge) in DE.

'no procede el abono de cantidad alguna al amparo de los términos y condiciones del *Contrato de Seguro* suscrito....'

I'm almost certain this is the equivalent term.

Browse over 1 million "direct" hits below :)

It was determined by the court that on its facts the basis of the challenge to the procurement was weak and that on the balance of convenience, Colchester Institute should be permitted to continue to enter the contract awarded.
http://www.hilldickinson.com/downloads/client_services/knowl...

(2) If the ground of a challenge is one that is not mentioned in subsection (1) and no order has been made under subsection (2.1), the two jurors who were last sworn — or, if no jurors have been sworn, two persons present who are appointed by the court for the purpose — shall be sworn to determine whether the ground of challenge is true.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-640-20111024...

A challenge to the array shall be in writing supported by affidavit and shall specify the facts constituting the ground of the challenge.
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/rules/criminal/cri...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2012-02-19 18:37:01 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

“Avoidance”

This in an interesting term I hadn’t come across in this context; one for the termbase and to keep in mind for future reference. My first thought was that it might be mostly used internally within the insurance industry and therefore perhaps not used in court proceedings but this seems not to be the case. On the other hand, upon seeing a few cases where the terms “avoidance of insurance” and “avoidance of policy” are used, most, but not all, seem to apply to cases where the insured has incurred in deception or provided false or misleading information, such as:

In the recent decisions of Hollinger v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 192 Colo. 377, 560 P.2d 824 (1977), and Wade v. Olinger Life Insurance Co., 192 Colo. 401, 560 P.2d 446 (1977), our Supreme Court rejected the "INTENT TO DECEIVE" test in cases involving the avoidance of insurance policies.
http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.1...

Insurance -- life -- avoidance of policy -- MISREPRESENTATIONS BY INSURED -- burden of proof -- evidence.
2. The record here is conclusive that the insured WILFULLY DECEIVED the insurer in failing to answer the questions in the application fully or honestly.
http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.1...

Insurance -- industrial life insurance -- avoidance of policy -- FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION.
3. The evidence justified the findings of the court on the questions of FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION and particularly that part of such findings to the effect that there was no evidence of wilful or intentional misstatements.
http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.1...

Find a Case: "avoidance of insurance" http://mn.findacase.com/research/search-results.aspx?sid=581...

Find a Case: "avoidance of policy" http://mn.findacase.com/research/search-results.aspx?sid=533...

On example where the term is used outside the context of false information is:
On the other hand, appellant argues that intent is a crucial element to prove in a case dealing with avoidance of insurance DUE TO AN ALLEGED SUICIDE.
http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.1...

Taking all the above into account, Tom’s (Allegro-confirmed) answer could well be worth adding to the glossary as it is more context-specific than my generic formula and I term I would use in the future, although It’d be great to have some more confirmation that it is widely-used outside the context false information, in which case I’d agree with Tom’s answer.