A. Seller has conducted its business activities at the Business Premises under the name of the Business. To the best of Seller’s knowledge and information, no other person or entity has conducted the same or similar Business at the Business premises, and no other person or entity has any interest in or right to use any of the Assets not previously revealed to Purchaser.
B. No person, other than third-party trade creditors, has provided Seller with any inventory, equipment, fixtures, or financing for Seller’s operation of the Business that has not been fully paid for by Seller.
C. All commissions, salaries, bonuses and/or compensation due Seller’s employees for services rendered prior to settlement are to be paid in full by Seller by
…show more content…
G. To the best of Seller’s knowledge and information, there is no pending litigation involving Seller as a party, regardless of whether such litigation involves, addresses, or pertains to the Assets, the Business, or the Business Premises and that there are no threatened claims against Seller pertaining to the Assets, the Business, or the Business Premises.
H. Seller has not received any notice, demand, or request from any federal, state, or municipal authority for Seller to take any action to cure any circumstance or condition existing on or relating to the Assets, the Business, or the Business Premises.
I. Seller has clear and marketable title to the equipment being sold except as may be noted elsewhere in this Agreement, is duly authorized and empowered to convey said assets, and will deliver the Assets free and clear of any and all accrued liabilities.
J. To the best of Seller’s knowledge and information, Seller has complied with, and shall to settlement continue to operate the Business in accordance with applicable all laws and regulations.
K. Seller has paid or will pay in full, to the date of settlement, all applicable withholding, sales, Social Security and unemployment insurance taxes.
L. There shall be no judgments, actions, liens, or proceedings outstanding or pending against Seller or any Asset in any tribunal at the time of
Therefore in this agreement the equipment is going to be partially financed by the lessor (Northwest) through a third-party financial institution (Lender) and act as a leveraged lease, wherein the lending company holds the title to the leased asset, while the lessor creates the agreement with the lessee (BNRR) and collects the payment for the use of the equipment. Therefore the lease in this case will be regarded as a financial decision for BNRR
It was a term of the contract that the agent was not to sell goods supplied by anyone other than the principal. The agent sold other goods and was dismissed.
3. NuTech Company agrees to sell computer equipment to Office Stores, inc (OSI) for OSI to make to its customers. Their construct will be unenforceable if it does not include: the quantity of the goods.
• TEC and AGL are partners carrying on a business under the name Southern Cross Energy.
c. Only after conduct that shows the buyer 's willingness to become owner of the goods.
g. On December 31, 2012, the company completed the work on a contract for an out-of-province company for $7,900 payable by the customer within 30 days. No cash has been collected and no journal entry has been made for this transaction.
Section 3.2 Authority. The Seller has full corporate power, authority and legal right to execute and deliver, and to perform its obligations under this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereunder, and has taken all necessary action to authorize the purchase hereunder on the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. This Agreement has been duly executed by the Seller and constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of the Seller enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, or other similar laws from time to time in effect, which affect the enforcement of creditors' rights in general and by general principles of equity regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in
u. P2) This implies that the seller who intends to enter a contract with a customer has a duty to disclose exactly what the customer is buying and what the terms of the sale are.
In the event that the seller breaches this agreement, the seller must refund the purchaser 's deposit, but the parties shall be limited to this remedy and only this remedy.
3.1. The Seller and the Buyer both acknowledge the sufficiency of this consideration. In addition to the purchase price specified in this Agreement, the amount of any present or future sales, use, excise or similar tax applicable to the sale of the Goods will be paid by the Buyer, or alternatively, the Buyer will provide the Seller with tax exemption certificate acceptable to the applicable taxing authorities.
WHEREAS, Seller desires to sell the vehicle described below, known herein as the "Acquired Vehicle", under the terms and conditions set forth below;
WHEREAS, the Parties have concluded that this Agreement is a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of all Claims that have been made, or could have been made in the Suit; and
SAB 104 lays down the following conditions that should all be fulfilled to enable revenue recognition in cases on non-delivery of goods: (1) The risks of ownership need to have been transferred to the purchasers, (2) The customers have made commitments, preferably written, to procure the goods, (3) The purchasers call for the ‘bill and hold’ transactions, (4) The buyers should be
When providing the distinction between the above charges the two stage process of legal characterization developed in Agnew must be applied by the English courts. The object of the first stage of the process is to ascertain the nature of the rights and obligations which the parties intended to grant each other in respect of the charged assets. Once these have been ascertained, the Court can then embark on the second stage of the process, which is one of categorization and designed to attribute the correct legal label to the package of rights and obligations. Lord Millett’s reasoning has been approved by the House of Lords in Re Spectrum in which emphasis was given to the freedom of the company to deal with the assets in the ordinary course of business rather than the two first criteria focusing on the nature of the secured assets.