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:11-16 of 16

Earn-out providing for return of assets if targets not met, rather than expressly requiring purchaser "effort", will not be rewritten just because the weak economy and other factors have made an asset return unpalatable to the seller
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • USA
  • April 6 2010

This ruling by Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery reminds us that in a commercial relationship, the contract reigns supreme.



SCC rejects doctrine of fundamental breach in context of exclusion clauses - Tercon Contractors v. British Columbia, 2010 SCC 4, February 12, 2010
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • March 25 2010

In an important ruling arising out of a disputed public procurement process, the Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously rejected the doctrine of fundamental breach, substituting a three-stage test of the enforceability of an exclusion-of-liability clause that considers (i) whether the clause actually applies to the type of breach that is alleged, (ii) unconscionability, and (iii) public policy.


No privacy in trash, Supreme Court holds
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP
  • Canada
  • April 14 2009

This Supreme Court of Canada ruling, which arose in the context of a criminal drug prosecution, underscores the importance of careful disposal of documents containing confidential information or other information that could potentially be embarrassing or damaging to your company's interests.



Andrew S. Cunningham
  • Stikeman Elliott LLP