Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bob has made his share of mistakes when it comes to drafting arbitration clauses. His excuse: “The law keeps changing and I can't instantly catch up.”
At least Bob understands that parties go to arbitration to get a final and binding award that the prevailing party can turn into a judgment. Bob therefore drafts arbitration provisions that expressly provide for the entry of judgment on the arbitration award: “Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.” Without this magic language, the “award” could end up being nothing more than an advisory opinion. When you are in a franchisor-franchisee dispute, the last thing you want is to arbitrate the dispute and wind up with an “award” that is not final, that is not binding, and that cannot be entered as a judgment.
Here is what Bob customarily includes in the form contracts that he routinely drafts for his franchisor clients: “Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating in any way to this contract or the breach of this contract shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the XYZ Arbitration Association. Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.”
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?