Search for: "Price v Price" Results 7301 - 7320 of 18,272
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Feb 2011, 4:53 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
"   "Here, contrary to the assertion of the law firm, it failed to meet its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Greene v Sager, 78 AD3d 777; Eisenberger v Septimus, 44 AD3d 994). [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 10:55 am by Paul S.O. Barbeau
However, in Zhang v Amaral-Gurgel the Court took a firm stance on the use and abuse of such “lawyer approval” clauses. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 9:27 pm by MacIsaac
  … The presence and extent of injuries are to be determined on the basis of evidence given in court. [32] Second, in Price v. [read post]
30 Jan 2025, 10:43 pm by Donald Dinnie
  In Society of Lloyd’s v Price in re : Society of Lloyd’s v Lee 2006 5 SA 393 (SCA) the South African Supreme Court of Appeal dealt with the gap problem which arose in considering whether the English or South African law of prescription applied and followed the approach in Lourens v van Hohne 1993 2 SA 104 (UW). [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 7:46 am by Steven Koprince
” Nine offerors submitted proposals, including Ma-Chis Kawv V, LLC. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 6:12 pm by Dan Parlow
” In the first case, franchisees of Quizno’s Canada Restaurants Corp allege that they were charged exorbitant prices for mandatory product in breach of their franchise agreements and of anti-competition and price-fixing laws: 2038724 Ontario Ltd. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 6:12 pm by Dan Parlow
” In the first case, franchisees of Quizno’s Canada Restaurants Corp allege that they were charged exorbitant prices for mandatory product in breach of their franchise agreements and of anti-competition and price-fixing laws: 2038724 Ontario Ltd. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 6:48 am by Laura Sandwell
British Telecommunications Plc  v Telefonica o2 UK Limited & Ors (3 – 4 Feb 2014): The respondents, various mobile phone network operators, disputed the reasonableness of the appellant’s new pricing system of telephone termination charges. [read post]