Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read format.
Features
In its June 3, 2008, decision in <i>Pultz v. Economakis</i>, the New York State Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is no limit on the number of rent-stabilized units an owner can attempt to recover for owner occupancy. The ruling was a major victory for rent stabilized landlords, and a sharp rebuke to tenant advocates who claimed that multiple recovery for owner occupancy violated the letter and spirit of the Rent Stabilization Law. Indeed, the case continues a recent trend of favorable Court of Appeals decisions for landlords.
Features
CDA Immunity Not Applicable To Allegedly Misleading Auction Safety Statements<br>Copying Web Site Page for Consumer Gripe Site Is Deemed Fair Use<br>Famous Trademark Parody on Goods Without Consumer Confusion No Infringement
Features
e-Commerce, like traditional commerce, relies on contracts. But unlike traditional commerce, e-commerce typically relies utterly on agreements drafted and presented by one party on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis. The validity of such contracts arises from the recipient's 'adherence' to the terms given. These so-called adhesion contracts are enforceable, except to the extent that a court finds a term unconscionable.
The typical e-commerce 'Terms and Conditions,' the electronic equivalent of the fine-print contract that governs use of a sales Web site, creates such an unfriendly shopping environment that it makes the legendary 'No soup for you!' restaurant of the television situation comedy Seinfeld seem like the Welcome Wagon. Although I have often written about how the law affecting e-commerce firms ordinarily follows traditional law, the common e-commerce contract stands in stark contrast. Consider the following clauses from actual online agreements obtained in April and May ' and whether you have ever seen anything comparable in any real-world store, much less these Web stores' real-world affiliates.
Features
The latest news from the franchising world.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
A franchisor of tax preparation franchises was entitled to a 24-month injunction beginning from the time of the former franchisee's compliance with a non-competition covenant. <i>Jackson Hewitt Inc. v. Childress</i>, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ' 13,849 (D. N.J., Jan. 22, 2008). The permanent injunction was ordered when the court granted the plaintiff franchisor's motion for summary judgment.
Features
Perhaps you've heard: On Jan. 23, 2007, the Federal Trade Commission adopted the comprehensively revised FTC Franchise Rule ('The Amended Rule') and released the 'Statement of Basis and Purpose' ('SBP'), which clarified the Amended Rule's requirements and prohibitions. Compliance with the Amended Rule has been optional since July 1, 2007, and became mandatory on July 1, 2008.