Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
No Disclosure Document? Not Always a Problem.
In two recent cases, franchisees attempted to assert that their failure to receive a Franchise Disclosure Document entitled them to rescind their franchise agreements. In both cases, the franchisee's arguments were ultimately rejected, because the franchisees purchased their franchises despite knowing that they should have or could have received the appropriate disclosures.
In U-Bake Rochester, LLC v. Utecht, 2 Bus. Franch. Guide (CCH) '15,228, (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2014), a licensee was equitably estopped from asserting that state franchise statutes were violated when it agreed to purchase the right to operate a U-BAKE frozen dough and bulk food store. The plaintiff, Baker, expressed an interest in licensing the rights to operate a U-BAKE store to Utecht, the founder and operator of U-BAKE stores. The parties negotiated the terms of a license agreement, which culminated with Baker opening and operating his own U-BAKE store.
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.
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.
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.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?