Blocade communications backdating radioactive dating used for dating the turin shroud
The relationship between plaintiffs and Tzolis had become antagonistic, to the extent that plaintiffs could no longer reasonably regard Tzolis as trustworthy. In similar fashion, if the Background section of the agreement recites facts about a dispute between the parties, the court likely will accept those facts as true; see the commentary to CD-25.2. That can help counter what one commentator says will be the plaintiffs' lawyers' response to the Pappas decision, namely not to stipulate in their complaints that the parties had a dispute. (c) Any prior master agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter of the Agreement is cancelled, on a going-forward basis only, as follows: (1) the Agreement (along with any applicable transaction-specific agreement) will govern any transaction concerning that subject matter whose performance is begun during the term of the Agreement. In that case: A Chinese manufacturer of solar-panel products entered into a co-branding agreement with a U. The co-branding agreement contained an arbitration provision, which expressly required that arbitration proceedings be in English. Subdivision (b) ia a corollary to the confidentiality obligations; see generally its commentary.
Therefore, crediting plaintiffs' allegations, the release contained in the Certificate is valid, and plaintiffs cannot prevail on their cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty. (2) Unless the Agreement expressly states otherwise, IF: Performance of a transaction has already commenced under a prior master agreement between the parties; THEN: That prior master agreement will remain in effect as to that transaction until its performance is completed. The Colorado district court ruled that, contrary to the decision of the arbitration panel, the testimony of the retailer's CEO established that the co-branding agreement had indeed been a "master" agreement; this meant that the Chinese-language notice of arbitration had been insufficient, and that in turn meant that, under the New York Convention, the court could decline to enforce the damages award. refers to a demand for information such as (for example) a subpoena; a search warrant; a civil investigative demand; or a discovery request in a lawsuit; if in each such case, both of the following are true: (1) the demand for information is initiated or propounded by a third party such as (for example) a litigant or a governmental entity; and (2) the Receiving Party's compliance with the demand for information may be compelled under penalty of law.
Suggestion: If you incorporate one or more Common Draft provisions by reference, consider using your browser's "Save to PDF" or "Print to PDF" capability to preserve a copy of this deskbook for future reference. Receiving parties, of course, generally prefer to have fixed expiration dates for confidentiality obligations. PRO TIP: Unfortunately, sometimes parties forget about return-or-destruction obligations.
The long-term goal of the Common Draft project is to serve as a lasting, public repository of carefully-drafted contract provisions that cover a wide variety of business needs, with annotations, commentary, and student exercises. A receiving party might want an expiration date for confidentiality obligations as a safe harbor. A disclosing party will want to follow up to be sure that the return-or-destruction requirement is actually complied with; if it were to fail to do so, a receiving party (or a third party) could try to use that as evidence that the disclosing party did not take reasonable precautions to preserve the secrecy of its confidential information, as discussed in this annotation.
] [NOTE: Don't rely on the drafts below as a substitute for legal advice about your specific situation. If the receiving party's confidentiality obligations are allowed to expire, the disclosing party might thereafter find it difficult — or, more likely, impossible — to convince a court to enforce any trade-secret rights in the relevant information. A receiving party might find it to be tremendously burdensome and expensive to try to return or destroy all copies of a disclosing party's confidential information, even those in emails, backup systems, etc.