Search for: "Price v. R & A Sales"
Results 81 - 100
of 2,152
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2010, 7:00 am
Probably the most famous case about this issue is Nebbia v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 2:43 pm
” Association for Accessible Medicines v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 10:07 am
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2016, 11:17 pm
If patent rights in a country such as the US are exhausted by the sale of a product in, say, India or Kenya, the only effective option left open to patentees will be to charge similar prices globally. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 8:27 am
This past March, the Supreme Court considered in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 7:57 am
Our explanations for the low sale prices are in large part mere speculation. [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 1:30 pm
Part IV analyses various licensing practices that may allegedly amount to abuses of a dominant position with a specific focus on price discrimination and what EC law refers to as "excessive" pricing. [read post]
31 May 2016, 6:26 am
In Ann Lane v. [read post]
27 Apr 2023, 11:23 am
Defining Cost or Pricing Data TINA defines cost or pricing data to include “all facts that, as of the date of agreement on price … or … another date agreed upon between the parties, a prudent buyer or seller would reasonably expect to affect price negotiations significantly. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:55 pm
Co. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2020, 3:00 am
The litigation arose out of the parties’ disagreement over post-closing purchase price adjustments arising out of the sale […] [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 3:00 am
Yesterday, in DFC Global v. [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 11:32 am
In ACCC v TEAC the Federal Court of Australia imposed penalties totalling $190,000 on TEAC Australia Pty Ltd and its National Sales Manager, Mr Warren Allison, for engaging in resale price maintenance in contravention of section 48 of the Trade Practices Act in relation to conduct that sought to stop an independent retailer of electronic products from advertising prices below the 'go price' specified by TEAC. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 12:55 pm
Synergy Sport International, Ltd. v United States, 17 C.I.T. 18 (1993).Customs cites many difficulties with the application of the First Sale Rule as the reasons for the proposed change. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 7:55 pm
Synergy Sport International, Ltd. v United States, 17 C.I.T. 18 (1993). [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 1:44 pm
A business sued two individuals in a New Jersey federal district court in Inventory Recovery Corp. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 10:23 am
My first involvement in such a case was in a case called Pearson v. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 4:00 am
The decision also marks the first time a court has been called on to apply the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent statement of the law in R v. [read post]
16 May 2019, 12:15 pm
Apple also keeps 30 percent of the sales price, no matter what the sales price might be. [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 1:39 pm
Evans & R. [read post]
