We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 98

Despite (or Because of) Extensive Negotiations, No Contract and No Promissory Estoppel
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • July 11 2016

A common scenario involves two parties involved in intense and prolonged negotiations that one party feels resulted in an enforceable contract, but


Giving Up What You Are Entitled To
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • June 23 2016

There were two recent cases from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, one on May 16 and one on May 17. The parties, judges, and areas of law were


End-User Makes End-Run to Sue ManufacturerSupplier of Competing Product
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • June 2 2016

One of the issues to be negotiated in a distributorship agreement is the allocation between the manufacturer and the distributor of risks and


Another Corporate Veil Piercing Case - Sham Transactions Make Affiliates and Individuals Vulnerable
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • May 17 2016

Suddenly courts in Illinois are issuing corporate veil piercing decisions. In our last update, we highlighted an Illinois Court of Appeals decision


Extreme Example of Piercing Corporate Veil
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • April 1 2016

It is standard legal advice for business lawyers to tell their clients to avoid claims of "piercing the corporate veil" by respecting the distinction


Trademark Infringement Suit That Should Not Have Been
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • March 17 2016

Often trademark infringement suits result from the unanticipated intersection of two apparently unrelated products or services. Sometimes the alleged


"Mere Continuation" Doctrine Applied to Transfer Liability to Successor Entity
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • December 23 2015

It is an often-cited principle that an entity that purchases the assets of another entity is not liable for the debts and liabilities of the


Requirements contract or not? Courts disagree
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • December 7 2015

A contract for the sale of goods should state a quantity to be enforceable. (Uniform Commercial Code Article 2-201). Article 2 of the UCC permits a


Contract says terminable on 30 days' notice but court says, not really
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • October 20 2015

A recent case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals discussed an interesting issue of contract interpretation of termination provisions, denying


Be careful who you contract with and who you don't contract with non-party not bound
  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • USA
  • October 2 2015

Northbound Group, Inc. generated and sold life insurance leads under the brand name "Leadbot." It was fairly successful in the late 1990s but was on