Search for: "Party 1 v. Party 2"
Results 21 - 40
of 37,944
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Sep 2017, 5:37 am
§ 56.29(1). [read post]
7 Dec 2007, 4:59 am
Target Brands, Inc. v. [read post]
2 May 2014, 12:00 am
Corp. v. [read post]
31 May 2013, 1:22 pm
SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - 14-12-00263-CV – 2/2/2013 ELEMENTS OF CONTRACT-FORMATION GENERALLY To create an enforceable contract, there must be (1) an offer, (2) acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer, (3) a meeting of the minds, (4) each party's consent to the terms, and (5) execution and delivery of the contract with the intent that it be mutual and binding. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 5:42 pm
It reminds us that: 1. [read post]
22 Dec 2019, 5:29 am
“A third-party beneficiary relationship exists if: (1) the contract calls for a performance by the promisor, which will satisfy some obligation owed by the promisee to the third party; or (2) the contract is so expressed as to give the promisor reason to know that a benefit to a third party is contemplated by the promisee as one of the motivating causes of his making the contract. [read post]
31 Jan 2020, 10:22 am
”Simbo Properties, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 7:24 am
" Iris Connex, LLC v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 4:28 am
An entity not a party to a collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law may not be bound by its termsMatter of Council of School Supervisors & Adm'rs, Local 1 v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 06451, Appellate Division, First Department The Council filed a contract grievance in response to a city-wide plan applicable to all city agencies that reduced the number of parking permits issued to municipal workers for parking on… [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 10:31 am
SEARCH & SEIZUREUnited States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
The order the party failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous;2. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
The order the party failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous;2. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 5:00 am
Kagan, J., dissenting, slip op. at 1-2. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 4:26 pm
(2) Despite subsection (1), a provision in, or condition of, an agreement is of no effect if it purports to — (a) exclude the operation of section 33, 36 or 38; or (b) extinguish (rather than bar) a right or title in relation to an action in a manner that would be inconsistent with a provision of Part 5. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 5:30 pm
It reminds us that: 1. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 3:03 am
Quicken Loans v. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 5:37 am
While Judge Winmill applied the third-party doctrine from Smith v. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 9:37 am
Reasons for judgement were released this week (Brooks v. [read post]
24 Dec 2016, 5:44 am
In Alereza v. [read post]