The motion court correctly rejected defendant's argument that its obligations to make payment under the parties' February 2000 settlement agreement and to pay plaintiff's share of its margin on the resale of certain services were contingent on plaintiff's charging it cost or most favored nation rates for the services it provided defendant, since, under the circumstances, the implication of dependent covenants would have rendered the settlement meaningless (see Ronnen v...
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.
