Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Predispute waivers of jury trials are unenforceable under California law, subject to certain limited exceptions. While the recent California Supreme Court case of Grafton Partners v. Supreme Court, 36 Cal. 4th 944 (2005), invalidated such waivers, there remain two ways that parties can agree, predispute, to avoid a jury trial in commercial real property related transactions.
The Grafton Case
On Aug. 4, 2005, the California Supreme Court held in Grafton that predispute agreements to waive jury trials are unenforceable. The holding in Grafton is retroactive, applying to contracts entered into before and after the date of decision. Because the Supreme Court's decision in Grafton was not based on the unconscionability of jury trial waivers, these waivers are unenforceable even in commercial settings where both parties are represented by sophisticated counsel. The Grafton holding sent shockwaves through the California real estate legal community, as most real estate-related contracts (e.g., leases, loan documents, purchase and sale agreements) contain waivers of jury trial.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?