Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lease Voided Due to Vendor' Default
On Oct. 31, 2007, a trial-level court in New York issued a decision finding that an equipment lease 'fail[ed] for lack of consideration' when the bankrupt vendor did not deliver the leased equipment, even though the lessee had signed a lease amendment stating (as quoted by the court) that:
[i]n consideration of Lessor's agreement to advance funds as requested above, Lessee agrees to immediately commence payments under the Lease, even though all of the Equipment may not yet be installed. Lessee agrees that, in order to induce Lessor to make payment as described above, the Lease will be in full force and effect immediately upon execution of this Amendment, as will Lessee's duty to make all payments and to fulfill all other obligations pursuant to the Lease. Should any item of Equipment not be delivered, Lessee alone shall be responsible and shall have recourse only to the appropriate Vendor. ' Nondelivery of any item of Equipment shall not relieve Lessee of the obligation of payment in full under the Lease.
Although this decision will likely be appealed and may be reversed, it still provides a cautionary tale of which lessors should be aware, so as to reduce the likelihood of suffering a loss due to a vendor's default.
While on its face this decision seems to run afoul of the basic leasing tenet that a finance lessor is only responsible for providing money to a deal and any issues regarding the equipment are between the lessee and the vendor, the facts set forth in the decision in CN Funding LLC v. The Ensig Group Ltd. et al. allowed the court to hold that the lessor did not qualify as a finance lessor insulated from the vendor's obligations.
In a typical finance lease transaction, the lessee enters into an agreement with a vendor to acquire specified equipment for an agreed-upon price. The finance lessor then pays the purchase price directly to the vendor, acquires title to the equipment (which is usually shipped directly from the vendor to the lessee), and leases the equipment to the lessee. Notwithstanding the sale of the equipment from the vendor to the lessor, the lessee obtains the right to enforce all representations and warranties relating to the delivery and quality of the equipment. Thus, in a typical finance lease transaction, the lessee has standing to seek recourse directly from the vendor in the event of non-delivery of the equipment or other equipment-related issues.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?