Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Many retail leases contain provisions in which a party to the lease “represents, warrants and covenants” to some proposition. These three terms are often used together, as if the drafter were hoping to cover all bases by the belts-and-suspenders approach. It is quite possible, however, that many attorneys are not sure what bases they actually need to cover, so they throw in all the words just in case.
But what does each of these words really mean in the context of a lease? What protection is each term actually giving the party for whose benefit they are stated? What obligations does each word impose on the party stating them? Do you need to say them all, or will two, or even one, do just as well?
Unfortunately, there is a dearth of case law interpreting these words in the commercial lease context. And an examination of the general case law and commentaries that discuss these concepts reveals more confusion than clarity on the subject.
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
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?