Xxxxxxx0. Most wine producers and negotiants purchase some portion of their grape supply from outside growers or from their own related corporations. The contracts that govern grape purchases are as varied as the parties negotiating them and the final product turns on balancing issues of control, quality, price, and term. The agreements take different forms and structures depending on the resolution of those issues. As in all contracts, the final agreement reflects the unique negotiation of the particular deal, including the bargaining strength and goals of the respective parties. Grape growers are farmers who would rather tend their land than deal with lawyers and contracts. Traditionally, many agreements for the purchase of grapes were handshake deals with few details flushed out before the parties' committed themselves to the relationship. Now, as more money is invested in the wine industry, complicated business structures are devised to own and manage the industry's assets. As the industry's assets seem to change hands more frequently than ever, formal detailed agreements can serve to protect the parties, increase the value of their holdings and create predictability in what are often long-term relationships. Nevertheless, the culture of the handshake persists. This article is intended to assist counsel in exploring ways that the lawyer for either grower or winery can protect clients in connection with the selling and sourcing of grapes and increase the value of business assets in a changing industry. The basic elements of the grape purchase agreement are the term, pricing mechanisms, viticultural practices (including farming, picking and delivery), quality standards and dispute resolution mechanisms. The seemingly generic terms governing assignment, force majeure and events of default also require special attention when structuring long-term contractual relationships in an industry characterized by regular changes in control and subject to the will of Mother Nature.
Xxxxxxx0. A California jury recently awarded an employee who was fired for refusing to sign a noncompete agreement $1.2 million in damages for wrongful discharge. Whether employ- ees have a right to refuse to sign unenforceable noncompete agreements is an emerging employment law issue. This article considers whether a wrongful discharge remedy is avail- able in such cases under the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. State court decisions addressing the question are conflicting. Some courts have allowed employers to discharge employees who refuse to sign a noncompete agreement even if the agreement is unreasonable. Other courts have recognized a claim for damages under the public policy exception. This article explores the issue from policy and managerial perspectives, critically analyzing the policy justifications advanced by the courts in those decisions, and comments on the liability risks to employers and the proper resolution of the issue.
Xxxxxxx0. 77 Employees covered hereby, may change a pass day after the schedule has been posted, if they receive permission from the Platoon Supervisor(s) of the shift(s) involved.
Xxxxxxx0. Xxxxxxx is a licensed telecom service provider (SP) based in the Netherlands acting on the Qupra network (NO), therefore by Regulator (ACM) ruling the MTA/FTA rates apply to all service-providers hosted direct on the Qupra network.
Xxxxxxx0. Introduction The Mississippi River watershed, the largest watershed in the United States, is comprised of thirty-one states and covers approxi-
Xxxxxxx0. 00.Xxxxxxxx Trustee May File Proofs of Claim.................47 SECTION8.16.Reports to the Property Trustee...........................48
Xxxxxxx0. 0 (x) (xxx) is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows : The executed resignations of all directors and officers of RTG, except Xxxxxxxxxx X Xxxxxxxx, to take effect at the Closing;
