Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Suppose a buyer contracts to purchase a retail shopping center for $10 million, paying a deposit of $100,000. Two weeks later, the buyer has second thoughts, and informs the seller that it will not close on the sale contract, and that buyer is prepared to forfeit the deposit. The seller makes immediate efforts to resell the center, but within three months, the area's major employer announces the closing of its plant. A year later, the seller resells for $7 million. What damages may the seller recover from the original breaching buyer? In White v. Farrell, decided last month, the Court of Appeals suggested ' over the objection of two concurring judges ' that the answer might be zero. But because White v. Farrell itself did not present the stark facts suggested in the introductory hypothetical, some chance remains that the hypothetical seller could recover damages.
The White Case
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.