Search Results

The covenant ensures that a party to a contract will do nothing to “destroy[] or injur[e] the right of The covenant may be breached when a party “exercises a contractual right as part of a scheme to deprive

without a merger clause is “complete, clear and unambiguous,” the courts look at the agreement in “light Lentner involved the sale of timber rights on real property consisting of approximately 299 acres of to which Lentner sold to Defendant, Upstate Forestry and Development LLC (“Upstate Forestry”), the rights the Court is making a distinction between the terms of the Timber Sale Contract – $15,500.00 for the right sense: the parties agreed that Upstate Forestry would make an upfront cash payment in exchange for the right

Plaintiff alleged that the Managing Members were not aware of the Company’s right to enter into the 49 “If, under the facts pled in the complaint, any reasonable person might conclude that the deal made sense negligence for management to trade in the lease, while failing to realize there was a 49-year lease right

disclosure by a party [would] not constitute a license to use or any transfer of ownership or other rights covenant, “neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right broadly as effectively to nullify other express terms of a contract, or to create independent contractual rights in the future provide’ other ‘services that could impact the transaction contemplated.’” [26]  “In light

non-resident plaintiff should be conducted virtually or in person was before the court in Sumec Textile & Light Defendant also argued that defendant had the right to conduct the deposition in person, which would provide

requirement, quite simply, is that by agreeing to arbitrate a party waives in large part many of his normal rights reviewed and ‘[p]articular words should be considered, not as if isolated from the context, but in the light

creature of contract”, 4 courts will enforce arbitration provisions as they would enforce contractual rights The attorney defendants further contended that PSF waived any potential right to arbitrate by commencing Since arbitration agreements are like any other agreement, 14 “a right to arbitration may be modified . 22 While acknowledging the law that “ ot every foray into the courthouse effects a waiver of the right to arbitrate before the court’s directive.” 27 “Once waived,” said the Court, “the right to arbitrate

payment of money pursuant to a contract accrues "when the party making the claim possesses a legal right otherwise devoid of any proof establishing that plaintiff is the assignee of HUD or that HUD had the right promissory note payable on demand begins to run at the time of its execution because that is when the right

Certainly, a litigant’s ability to recoup legal fees and/or be forced to pay an adversary’s legal fees might litigation and preclude tenant-shareholders from making meaningful decisions about how to vindicate their rights

arbitration.”[6] “A party to an agreement will not be compelled to arbitrate, and thereby, to surrender the right the negligence causes of action and that EPTL 5-4.1 conferred upon them the individual, independent right Court of Pennsylvania also determined that a wrongful death claim was not derivative of a decedent’s rights Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed an interpretation of Kentucky’s law that a decedent had no legal rights

plaintiff nevertheless failed to satisfy the justifiable reliance element of the claim, explaining that in light plaintiff was compensated for his share of the businesses and, among other things, granted certain rights Agreement (and related agreements) was executed, the parties began to dispute the various amounts and rights do with indication of interest in buying membership interests.” 19 Thus, concluded the Court, “ n light

Once the mortgagee’s election to accelerate is properly made, “the borrower’s right and obligation to merits, the lender’s argument that the retroactive application of FAPA is violative of its due process rights that such retroactive application violates neither the lender’s substantive nor procedural due process rights