The IAS Court properly determined that questions of fact exist sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Whether the $150,000 was intended to be a separate payment for termination of the earlier contract or part of the consideration for the new agreement should await full disclosure and perhaps trial. Further, whether the defendants were aware that plaintiff's affiliate could not be legally designated a managing agent at the time the new agreement was entered into also raises...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
