The Uniform Commercial Code recognizes that buyers and consumers generally tend to trust professional sellers due to their competence and expertise and also because they are better at protecting themselves than nonprofessionals. As a result, the code kind of holds merchants to a seemingly higher standard in some cases. But not always, as just said it depends on the case as the code defines merchant on a case-by-case basis. A person can be seen a merchant for the purpose of the contract in question for the following two “cases” : 1. If a person frequently deals in the types of goods that are being sold and as a result holds some sort of expertise of the product. 2, or employs and agent for the specific sale that happens to fit the description of the professional in the first scenario.
Unfortunately, Williams has lost the right to recover the painting from Olive. In order for Williams to have the chance to recover the debt that he is entitled to from Myron, he needs to recover it. Olive on the other hand, as a purchaser in good faith for value under the Uniform Commercial Code, received good title from Myron. As Myron lacked any true right to keep the painting as the title he had to it was directly voidable.
A technology transfer takes place when one business or organization licenses its intellectual property to another business or organization. This generally is seen as an action that will save you a lot of time and money, as it will quickly allow you to penetrate a foreign market without having to take the steps of investment, you just simply embrace and apply the already existing terms of a license agreement. Usually the intellectual property is given to one firm while receiving some sort of compensation, this all is typically takes place through a licensing agreement.
There are several benefits to licensing, to both parties. Licensors directly benefit upon the success of the licensors as they are entitled to royalties and payments and gaining a presence and hopefully a success within a market which was previously unreachable to them. Licensing also creates new jobs in the new market, jobs that can be filled by the locals in the new market, preventing the current crew being forced to move there, and by doing so the company is allowed to expand.
However, just like most things technology licensing also has its downsides. Perhaps the biggest issue is the growth and independency of the licensee. As time progresses, the licensee may apply their own ideas and changes. Changes that may or may not make them better, if yes they become a competitor and if not they become an instant risk to the company. As the standards may lower and give the brand a negative association. Therefore, the licenser needs to keep checking the licensees standards quite frequently.
The general rule when discussing changes to a current contract says that it requires new consideration to be binding. However, courts have created an exception a few different situations, situations where the promisor runs into unforeseeable difficulties which makes his duties towards the contract either impossible, impracticable or unfairly burdensome. Therefore, looking at this case I do believe that Vladimir constructions will win the case. As I believe that they have enough evidence to prove one of these unforeseeable difficulties (existence of bedrock). This made the entire process more complex and more expensive than initially calculated, money which the Petersons will probably have to pay for.
A liquidated debt is undisputed: this can be explained as an agreement between the parties on both its existence and the amount which the debtor owes the creditor. When this is the case, it creates some legal responsibilities for the debtor, as the debtor has legal duty to pay the agreed-upon amount to the creditor. In the same case, a creditor’s promise to take anything less than the amount agreed on is not then supported by consideration. Following that same case again, the promise is also unenforceable against the creditor. Looking at it from the opposite point of view, if the debtor does an action that he or she had no duty to do in exchange for the creditors promise, the debtor still has the right to enforce the creditors promise against him.
Comparing then, an unliquidated debt is one whose existence or the amount agreed on is a result of a dispute between the two parties. The two parties negotiate to reach an agreement where the sum can be seen acceptable for both, even though it may not be optimal. Upon agreement, each party gives up their right to go to court and try to dispute the debt. Due to this, each party gives the other party consideration to support the other’s promise to compromise the debt, so this then makes the compromise enforceable against both parties.
In most cases, the plaintiff would have to show four different things in order to truly recover for trademark infringement. 1. Must prove that it has the trademark in its possession. 2. The defendant used the discussed trademark in commercial purposes. 3. When using the trademark, the defendant used it in connection with a sale, distribution, or as a tool to advertise a specific good or service. 4. The defendants use of the trademark is likely to confuse the customers due to the exposure on a for the trademark, unusual channel.
Perhaps one of the biggest exceptions and most important exceptions to consideration is the one of promissory estoppel. Firstly, before giving an example lets discuss when promissory estoppel can take place. There are three elements that need to be present for estoppel to take place (a promise likely to induce reliance, reliance on that promise, and injustice as a result of reliance). Let’s give an example. Let’s assume that a tenant tells his landlord that he’s intending to remodel his apartment, and by following through with this remodeling it would cost him a lot of money. So naturally, prior to this remodeling the tenant asks the landlord if he will be able to resign his lease and by doing so, ensure his further staying in the apartment. If the landlord then says yes but fails to honor this promise, assuming that the remodeling did indeed cost a substantial amount of money based on the landlords promise, the promise will most likely be enforceable.