Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Suppliers only have to repurchase new, unused equipment from dealers under Delaware's Equipment Dealer Contracts Statute, the state Supreme Court has ruled in answering a question certified from the Third Circuit.
The en banc court's decision in Terex v. Southern Track & Pump, No. 13-4279 (June 16), ruled that the statute's silence on the suppliers' obligations to repurchase used equipment when a distributor agreement was terminated meant there was no obligation to repurchase the used inventory.
The conflict arose from two seemingly contradictory portions of the statute, with distributor Southern Track & Pump (Southern Track) arguing that the statute provided for the repurchase of “all inventory,” while Terex highlighted the fact that the statute's subsequent pricing formulas for repurchase only referenced unused equipment.
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?