If the case is about the sale of goods, UCC Article 2 applies [UCC 2-102]. Second, as the general contract rule states, any contract needs to have four requirements to be enforceable, namely agreement, consideration, capacity and legality. Third, the Statute of Frauds requires that sales contracts for goods priced at $500 or more must be in writing to be enforceable [UCC 2-201(1)]. Fourth, UCC provides a special rule for contracts between merchants. Merchants can satisfy the Statute of Frauds if, after the parties have agreed orally, one of the merchants sends a signed written confirmation to the other merchant within a reasonable time, or he can send an email confirmation of the agreement.
Retrieved on Dec 7, 2010 from: http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/dilution.html Biznik business networking. The Difference Between a Trade Name and a Trademark and Why You Should Care. Retrieved on Dec 7, 2010 from: http://biznik.com/articles/the-difference-between-a-trade-name-and-a-trademark-and-why-you-should-care Avvo. Doctors, Lawyers, Ratings, Answers. What can I do about trade name infringement?
Jackson, for Respondent. |Date: |2000-06-19 | |Docket: |AI 99-30-04430 | |Parallel citations: | 9 WWR 1; 6 BLR (3d) 193; 148 Man R (2d) 19 | Introduction: The issue in this appeal is whether or not the trial judge was in error in finding that the parties had negotiated a valid contract for the sale of shares in a privately held company. Facts and Background: Gendis Inc. owned 50% of the issued shares of a private company that produces oil in western Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta called Tundra Oil and Gas Ltd. On January 28, 1998, Albert Cohen, the chair of Gendis’s board of directors, approached George Richardson, the managing director of James Richardson & Sons, Limited, the parent company of Richardson, for the purpose of selling the Gendis shares in Tundra to Richardson. Albert Cohen and George Richardson met on two occasions early in 1998 and also exchanged telephone calls in an attempt to reach an agreement. In a meeting on February 12, 1998 Albert Cohen decided that the CEO of Gendis, Allan MacKenzie, will be the authorized Agent negotiating the sale on behalf of Gendis.
M International (“M”) and W Inc. (“W,” a competitor of M) have been engaged in long- standing litigation over a specific patent infringement matter. Below is a summary timeline of specific events that have taken place related to this matter: • In May 2007, W filed a claim against M for patent infringement. • For the year ended December 31, 2007, management of M determined that a loss for this matter was probable and represented that the estimate of loss was in the range of $15 million to $20 million, with $17 million being the most likely amount of loss within the range. • A jury trial took place in September 2009. • The jury reached a verdict on September 24, 2009, and a judgment was ordered in favor of W. The judgment required M to pay W $18.5 million.
Trial Brief The following is a trial brief prepared by Carmen Smith To: Carmen Smith From: Supervisory Attorney Date: February 16, 2014 Re: White v. Calkin, Civ 03-388 Jane White Plaintiff vs. Jeffery Calkin & Sage Rent-A-Car Defendants Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss QUESTION PRESENTED Under the New Mexico Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act, (MFRA), NMSA 1978 Sections 66-5-201 to 66-5-239 and NMSA 1978 Section 66-5-205 (1998), can a lessor, who is self-insured by the superintendent of insurance, be held liable for damages caused by the negligent use of a vehicle by a lessee? STATEMENT OF THE CASE Our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. leased a vehicle to Jeffery Calkin. Mr. Calkin collided with Jane White (the plaintiff) after failing to stop at a stop sign. Ms. White filed a negligence law suit against Mr. Calkin and our client, Sage Rent-A-Car siting a violation of the provisions under MFRA. Sage Rent-A-Car, Inc. filed a surety bond with the superintendent of insurance and is self-insured.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting through the Attorney General’s office brought a consumer protection enforcement action against the defendant, Fremont Investment & Loan claiming that in originating and servicing 14,578 loans, 50-60 percent of such loans were “subprime” mortgage loans on borrowers’ homes between 2004 and 2007 acted unfairly and deceptively in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A § 2. Fremont’s ability to foreclose on loans with features that the judge described as “presumptively unfair.” Issue. Whether the subprime loans made by Fremont constituted unfair and deceptive acts in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A, § 2.
Additional factors that are relevant to this determination include "entrepreneurial aspects of the individual's business; risk of loss and opportunity for profit; and the individual's proprietary interest in his business." See Merchants, 580 F.2d at 973; SIDA, 512 F.2d at 359; see also Corporate Express Delivery Sys. v. NLRB,292 F.3d 777, 780-81 (D.C.Cir. 2002). We must assess and weigh all of the incidents of the relationship with the understanding that no one factor is decisive, see United Ins, 390 U.S. at 258, 88 S.Ct.
Memorandum To: John Doe: CEO CC: Legal Department From: Elementary Division Manager Date: [ 4/27/2014 ] Re: EMPLOYEE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CASE Issue: We have received notice from the company attorney stating the plaintiff, a former employee, has filed a case against the company, The Toy Box, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on the grounds of constructive discharge based on conflicting scheduling between work and religion. Despite the plaintiff’s decision to voluntarily remove himself from the company, The Toy Box could be found legally responsible for all lost wages to the plaintiff. The company may also be legally liable to compensate for the plaintiff’s pain and suffering as
Your Rights Under State Law 10. Equifax Credit Score Section Description Summary of account activity Detailed account information Companies that have requested or viewed your credit information Bankruptcies, liens, garnishments and other judgments Personal data, addresses, employment history How to dispute information found on this credit report Summary of Your Rights Under the FCRA Remedying the Effects