Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.
There is a common misconception that the obligation to satisfy a "best efforts" clause requires rigorous performance, regardless of hardship or cost to the promisor. This misconception of the meaning of the term "best efforts" stems from the divergence between common parlance and jurisprudence. Considering the term in the vernacular, "best efforts" implies superlative action. Therefore, when one puts forth one's "best efforts," such action is not simply good, or better, but the best according to one's capabilities. James M. Van Vliet, Jr., <i>"Best Efforts" Promises Under Illinois Law,</i> Ill. B.J. 5 (Dec. 2000). The implication is that to satisfy a promise for "best efforts," there is no limit as to what one will do, no hardship or expense too great to satisfy the obligation. In fact, it would appear that many believe this to be the definition of "best efforts."
Features
When leasing or selling parcels of property that are located outside of an enclosed shopping center but within the perimeter of the shopping center property (<i>eg</i>, along the interior road of the shopping center, along the peripheral boundary of the shopping center, or along shared parking fields of a shopping center), a landlord should consider several concepts that may not be considered critical issues when leasing in-line space. However, for purposes of leasing or selling outparcel locations, these concepts are not only financially important to the landlord, but also will impact the day-to-day operations of a shopping center. These concepts include parking, insurance/casualty, maintenance and repair, and signage.
Features
Businesses borrow money. Security for the repayment of a loan often includes a lien granted by the borrower to its lender on the borrower's equipment, trade fixtures and inventory ("Tenant's Property"). A lender and its borrower can expend significant time and resources negotiating the loan documents whereby the borrower grants the lender a security interest in Tenant's Property. Of course, businesses also frequently lease the space in which they conduct their operations ("Leased Premises"). If they plan to locate portions of Tenant's Property within a Leased Premises, a conflict of interests inevitably arises between the lender and the owner of the Leased Premises, <i>ie</i>, the borrower's landlord. A lender will want to obtain an unfettered right to enter the Leased Premises and remove the Tenant's Property without being deemed a trespasser or a converter of any interest of the landlord in Tenant's Property.
Features
Visit <i>www.occupationalhazards.com</i> for everything you ever wanted to know about occupational safety, health and loss prevention. This month's column covers some of the many features offered by the site.
Does product liability law make economic sense? Ask a random group of economists and you will get, in all probability, three basic answers: 1) yes, sort of; 2) no, sort of; and 3) maybe, it depends.
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Many successful trial specialists consider "other similar incidents" evidence ("OSI") to be among the most powerful weapons intended to persuade juries that the product in question is truly defective. If they are used, however, two things are necessary: evidence to support the incidents, and careful scrutiny, not only for the familiar standards of so-called "substantial similarity," but also for true relevance, probativeness and potential for prejudice.
In the emerging issue of third-party liability, recent rulings by the high courts of New York state and Georgia, and a case pending before the New Jersey Supreme Court, may provide some insight as to the direction other state supreme courts may follow.
Contractual indemnification arises in products liability litigation in many contexts other than insurance contracts. Agreements between companies and agreements between product manufacturers and physicians and pharmacies are among the most commonly encountered indemnifications in drug and device product liability litigation. Each situation raises practical concerns for counsel representing a pharmaceutical or device manufacturer. How the indemnification provisions are drafted can be important to the client's bottom line and ability to manage litigation. This article discusses some of the practical and litigation strategy considerations that can arise when contemplating entering an agreement for indemnification.
