Search for: "Price v. R & A Sales"
Results 1 - 20
of 2,152
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2017, 4:00 am
” See Schwartz v. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 4:00 am
V. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 7:47 am
Bd. of Edn. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 4:13 pm
If buyer and seller shove very little of the purchase price into goodwill, a seller could raise the argument - as it did (unsuccessfully) in RSG v. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 6:43 am
By: Larry R. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 9:26 am
In Kim v. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 10:08 pm
If the fair market value exceeds the sales price at the foreclosure sale, the borrower is entitled to an offset of the excess of the fair market value against the deficiency. [read post]
3 May 2011, 3:14 pm
In the case leading up to the order, the FTC discovered that Toys “R” Us, seeing warehouse clubs offering much lower prices, extracted agreements with toy manufacturers to stop selling the same toys to warehouse clubs and other discounters that Toys “R” Us was receiving. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 7:00 am
The difference between the short sale price, or price at a trustee's sale, and the loan balance may be forgiven debt. [read post]
26 Dec 2007, 9:16 pm
In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Navman Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2061, the Federal Court imposed penalties totalling $1.36 million against Navman Australia Pty Ltd and 2 of its officers as a result of a large number of contraventions of the resale price maintenance prohibition contained in s 48 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) . [read post]
5 Mar 2017, 10:16 am
From an academic point of view a sale has taken place when the parties agree on the price and on the items sold even if they have not yet paid the price or delivered the item. [read post]
12 Apr 2017, 11:29 pm
[The case is Griesel v Haasbroek] [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 6:46 pm
In Chappell v. [read post]
26 Apr 2015, 10:07 pm
ONEOK, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 8:10 am
The Supreme Court is sitting on the first-sale patent case of Bowman v. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 6:44 am
In United States v. 4.85 Acres of Land, No. 07-35310 (Sep. 29, 2008), the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the trial court should not have refused to admit evidence of sales at properties nearby the property taken, even though the sales occurred after the taking. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 7:08 am
In Bower v. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 8:01 pm
Toledo Mack Sales & Serv. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2011, 8:38 am
White v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 9:22 am
Guest post by Professor Sarah R. [read post]
