Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Czechlist] to post bond....

Expand Messages
  • James Kirchner
    Michael, this is really useful. Thank you! Jamie ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 29 , Dec 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael, this is really useful. Thank you!

      Jamie

      On Dec 28, 2010, at 9:32 PM, Michael A. Trittipo wrote:

      > On 12/28/2010 4:17 PM, James Kirchner wrote:
      > > They don't need to pay "kauce" to prevent themselves from violating
      > > clause 9.
      >
      > On Dec 28, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:
      > >> Would you please explain to me in plain language the last part: **
      > >> xxx ** The Parties hereby acknowledge that damages may not be an
      > >> adequate remedy for any breach of this clause 9 and that either
      > >> Party will therefore be entitled to apply for injunctive relief
      > >> from any court of competent jurisdiction **without the requirement
      > >> to post bond to restrain any breach or threatened breach of this
      > >> clause 9**
      >
      > More accurately, neither needs to pay for a kauce _TO GET AN INJUNCTION
      > AGAINST THE OTHER_ when it claims that the OTHER IS violating clause 9.
      > The ordinary rule in most American courts is that someone who wants an
      > injunction has to put up a guarantee (buy a bond) to pay any damages
      > that the person who is enjoined may suffer if the injunction turns out
      > to have issued wrongfully. That's Rule 65 in most jurisdictions, like
      > http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule65.htm, part (c).
      >
      > Jiri, the sentence's logic may be more clear if re-ordered to put the
      > "to restrain ... clause 9" BEFORE the word "without" and after the word
      > "relief" as follows (and slightly abridged for clarity):
      >
      > "Either Party [can] apply for injunctive relief to restrain any breach
      > or threatened breach of this clause 9, without having to post bond in
      > order to get the injunction."
      >
      > I'd rephrase Jamie's explanation in typewriter-redlining form as
      > > <+Neither+> <-They don't-> need<+s+> to pay "kauce" to <+get a court
      > > order to+> prevent <-themselves-> <+the other+> from violating . . ..
      >
      > Yours having obtained (and prevented the obtaining of) many, many
      > injunctions from state and federal courts, sometimes having to pay for
      > an injunction bond, sometimes not having had to.
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.