Name No Content These fields are required. Email Email id Click to edit. Email No Content This field is required. Job role Click to edit. Job role No Content This field is required. Job title. Job title Click to edit.
Job title No Content This field is required. Company Click to edit. Company No Content This field is required. Country Click to edit. Country No Content This field is required. Complete all the fields above to proceed to the next step. Mobile phone. Mobile phone Click to edit. Patent License means any written agreement, now or hereafter in effect, granting to any third party any right to make, use or sell any invention on which a Patent, now or hereafter owned by any Grantor or which any Grantor otherwise has the right to license, is in existence, or granting to any Grantor any right to make, use or sell any invention on which a Patent, now or hereafter owned by any third party, is in existence, and all rights of any Grantor under any such agreement.
Patent License Agreement means the particular Patent License Agreement to which these Terms and Conditions are attached and incorporated into by reference. Trademark License means any written agreement, now or hereafter in effect, granting to any third party any right to use any trademark now or hereafter owned by any Grantor or that any Grantor otherwise has the right to license, or granting to any Grantor any right to use any trademark now or hereafter owned by any third party, and all rights of any Grantor under any such agreement.
License Key means a software licensing management and security tool or other device that Licensor uses to allow Licensee access to the Program s and which may have an expiration date. Sublicense Agreement means any agreement or arrangement pursuant to which Licensee or an Affiliate or Sublicensee grants to any third party any of the license rights granted to the Licensee under the Agreement.
Software License Agreement means the agreement provided in Exhibit B. Intellectual Property License Agreement means the agreement to be entered into between NNL, on the one hand, and the Purchaser or the relevant Designated Purchasers , on the other hand, on or prior to the Closing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F. In June Shoen sued Zacarias for damages, injunctive and declaratory relief on theories of 1 trespass, 2 nuisance, 3 ejectment, and 4 negligence.
The first lawsuit went to trial solely on the issue of equitable easement. A second trial found that Zacarias was entitled to an exclusive irrevocable license to the entire disputed area and that this license would last forever, even after Zacarias sold the property.
The trial court ruled that the equities favored Zacarias because the disputed area was accessible from the Zacarias property and did not appear to provide any benefit to the Shoen property. The court found that there was insufficient evidence of substantial expenditures in reliance on the implied license.
The court found that the estimate of expenditures was improperly calculated and that the initial improvements were made when Zacarias labored under the mistaken belief that the whole patch belonged to her, not in reliance on the license granted in More importantly the court found that the expenditures were not substantial.
The cost, for example, of movable furniture could not be counted. The trial court used the wrong legal standard, according to the Appellate court. Rather than look to when Zacarias would obtain the return on investment of her upkeep occurring after she obtained a license, the court engaged in a wholly separate inquiry into who would make better use of the disputed area by balancing the greater value and utility of the disputed area to Zacarias due to her ready access to the area against the lesser value and utility of the area to Shoen due to her less-than-ready access to the area.
The proper analysis would have noted that Zacarias made all of her improvements before any license was granted. The only investment to be recovered was the annual investment in upkeep. The court also noted that under California law, an irrevocable license is treated much like an easement. And courts have held that easements are likewise unenforceable against a subsequent purchaser without notice. The court summarized:. Accordingly, when an easement or other use is not visible and does not provide actual notice to the purchaser, it must be recorded to be enforceable.
The recording statutes operate to protect the expectations of the grantee and secure to him the full benefit of the exchange for which he bargained. See more ». This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks.
By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies. Is an Irrevocable License Binding on a Purchaser?
0コメント