Search for: "Price v. R & A Sales" Results 401 - 420 of 2,153
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am by centerforartlaw
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
11 Jan 2015, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
The parties then used $24,915 from the joint account as a down payment on the purchase price of $71,000 and mortgaged the balance. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 9:23 am
 The decision by the young couple to put two parcels up for sale outside their family at a price that far exceeded the original purchase price of the entire two quarters came as a disappointing surprise to the Vendor's family.However, the Court did not find that this made the transaction between the Vendor and the young couple unconscionable and subject to being set aside. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 3:30 pm
The Sixth Circuit recognized this exception to the general rule, but held it not applicable in cases like Saber Healthcare v. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 1:13 am by Jani Ihalainen
After the Advocate General's opinion in September the question of restricting the sale of luxury goods online has finally landed on the CJEU's desk, who handed down their judgment only last week.As a brief primer, the case of Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH concerned the sale of luxury cosmetics made by Coty. [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 9:45 am
Kittredge, writing for a unanimous court, noted that, "the price paid for the property was so grossly inadequate that the sale could not be sustained. [read post]
2 Dec 2017, 8:39 pm by Mark Summerfield
  According to this model, an initial item – such as an inkjet printer – is sold at a low price (possibly below cost) in order to increase subsequent sales of consumable supplies – i.e. ink cartridges. [read post]
29 May 2016, 2:51 pm by Jordan Pascale, P.L.
Holdings: The District Court of Appeal, Emas, J., held that: Liquidated damages provision was not unenforceable on grounds vendor could choose between damages and specific performance; Amount to be forfeited was not grossly disproportionate to sale price; and Provision was not rendered unconscionable by subsequent sale for higher price. [read post]