Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Unlike disabling restraints, the effectiveness of the lawsuit does not prevent the transfer from being made. However, the Supreme Court says promissory restraints are not permissible. The promissory note discourages the person getting ready to sell the property which is the same effect as the disabling restraint. Forfeiture restraints
Restraint of trade in England and the UK was and is defined as a legal contract between a buyer and a seller of a business, or between an employer and employee, that prevents the seller or employee from engaging in a similar business within a specified geographical area and within a specified period.
In property law, alienation is the voluntary act of an owner of some property to convey or transfer the property to another. [1] Alienability is the quality of being alienable , i.e., the capacity for a piece of property or a property right to be sold or otherwise transferred from one party to another.
Quia Emptores is a statute passed by the Parliament of England in 1290 during the reign of Edward I that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation, instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution.
An alienation clause is common in mortgages, giving a mortgage lender the right to request full and immediate loan repayment when the home is sold or transferred.
Economic torts are tortious interference actions designed to protect trade or business. The area includes the doctrine of restraint of trade and, particularly in the United Kingdom, has largely been submerged in the twentieth century by statutory interventions on collective labour law and modern competition law, and certain laws governing intellectual property, particularly unfair competition law.
But North Carolina, along with five other states nationwide, still has laws on the books allowing a jilted partner to sue. The allegation of “alienation of affection” now faces NC House ...
Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that for a restraint of trade to be lawful, it must be ancillary to the main purpose of a lawful contract. A naked restraint on trade is unlawful; it is not a defense that the restraint is reasonable.