Search for: "MAY CONTRACTING, INC." Results 61 - 80 of 14,959
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Sep 2014, 6:08 am
That's 1 cent more than MBV mid summer and 3 cents less than we discussed back in May. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 4:00 am by Martin Kratz
While Courts rarely interfere in bad contracts they may do so when the contract is void as against public policy or is unconscionable. [read post]
25 Feb 2007, 1:00 pm
But if parties agree by contract that one is going to pay another for an idea, that contract may be enforceable. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 2:51 pm by Bryan West
Trotter and Morton Industrial Contracting Inc., 2023 MBCA 64 appeared first on Construction Law Canada. [read post]
10 May 2016, 12:11 pm by Arianne Bouchard
Gemme canadienne PA inc., 2016 QCCS 1263. [2] 1994 CanLII 5837 (QC CA). [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 10:01 am
Two recent bankruptcy court decisions – In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc. and In re Contract Research Solutions, Inc. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:55 pm by WOLFGANG DEMINO
CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995) (only where contract is first determined to be ambiguous may courts consider parties' interpretation or admit extraneous evidence to determine true meaning of instrument). [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 9:15 am by Donald Heyrich
  The Court did state, however, that “it is beyond dispute that Washington law provides that “a terminable-at-will contract may be unilaterally modified” thereby affirming the lower trial court’s ruling on that issue. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 9:30 pm by WOLFGANG DEMINO
Noble Logistic Servs., Inc., No. 14-08-01030-CV, 2010 WL 343487, at *2, (Tex. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 1:09 am by drdiekman
Practitioners should note that the term need not be express, but may be implied. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 10:50 am by Thomas G. Heintzman
If the contractor refuses to do the work, then the owner may terminate the contract and sue the contractor for damages. [read post]
28 Jan 2021, 5:24 am by CJ Kim and Celine Collis
However, the contract is not treated as if it had never existed (State Trading Corp of India Ltd v M Golodetz & Co Inc Ltd [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 277). [read post]