Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Wave Goodbye to Waivers of Jury Trials
In a decision that all franchisors need to note, on Aug. 4, 2005 the California Supreme Court ruled that pre-dispute waivers of a jury trial in a civil matter are unconstitutional under the California constitution. Many commercial agreements include a pre-dispute waiver of a jury trial so that businesses that prefer not to submit disputes to arbitration can elect to litigate claims and have their disputes heard by a judge rather than submit to a jury trial. The high court in Grafton Partners v. Superior Court (PricewaterhouseCoopers), 2005 Cal. LEXIS 8586, 4 (2005), affirmed an appellate court's decision to reject the 1991 appellate court decision upholding pre-dispute waivers of jury trials in Trizec Properties Inc. v. Superior Court, 229 Cal.App.3d 1616 (1991). This case will alter the way commercial contracts ' from joint venture agreements, to franchise agreements, real estate leases and other contracts ' are written. The Grafton decision is a call to California-based franchisors, and franchisors with franchises in California, to take stock of their decisions and provisions regarding dispute resolution.
Jury Waivers Out
Grafton arose out of a complaint against PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P. (“PWC”), alleging negligence, misrepresentation, and other causes of action. PWC sought a court trial, and the plaintiffs sought a jury trial. The trial court granted PWC's motion to strike the plaintiff's request for a jury trial but, as noted above, the appellate court overturned the trial court's ruling and held that a pre-dispute waiver of a jury trial is not authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure section 631 and is therefore unconstitutional.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.