Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ambiguity in Law Firm Partnership Agreements
You would expect that lawyers, many of whom draft and revise contracts on a daily basis, would be especially careful to draft their own law firm partnership agreements so as to make their intentions clear and remove areas of potential ambiguity. Yet this does not always happen. In several recent cases, partners have brought suit against their firms or former firms, and argue that provisions of their partnership agreements should be interpreted one way, while the firms have chosen to implement the provisions in other ways. In these cases, courts must decide if the clauses at issue have at least two reasonable interpretations and are therefore sufficiently ambiguous that the matters should be decided by a fact-finder, or if the provisions are clear enough that they are unambiguous and the claims do not survive summary judgment.
A traditional way courts resolve ambiguity in contract disputes is by applying the doctrine of contra proferentem, which means that if the intent of the parties is impossible to discern, any ambiguities must be construed against the drafter as a matter of law. However, in cases 'where the relevant extrinsic evidence offered raises a question of credibility or presents a choice among reasonable inferences the construction of the ambiguous terms of the contract is a question of fact which precludes the application of the contra proferentem rule.' Morgan Stanley Group, Inc. v. New England Ins. Co., 36 F. Supp. 2d 605, 609 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), aff'd in part & vacated in part on other grounds, 225 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2000).
The Insufficiently Specific Clause
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.