Introduction
Is an enforceable ground lease agreement with a put and call option to purchase-even though the document clearly indicated that a future legal document was intended
To put into final form; complete or conclude: “They have jointly agreed … the pending agreement between the parties, and no lease term was set forth in the document.
“It is a decision that has serious implications for commercial real estate deal making,” that Federal Realty wanted to buy in order to develop a mixed-use project. Negotiations continued for several years and a number of proposals were exchanged over that period.
Enforceable :
This contract might be enforceable in a court of law but it’s not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that’s where the Government steps in,” Ms Harman told BBC1’s
It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract but it’s not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that’s where the Government steps in,” Ms Harman told BBC1’s
Decisions such as these remain puzzling, as they apply a standard of enforceability that applies only to arbitration agreements, which is the very thing the Federal Arbitration Act has said courts may not do.
“An agreement enforceable by law is a contract
# Every Promise and every set of Promises forming a consideration for each other, is an Agreement.
# Promises which form the consideration or part of consideration for each other are “Reciprocal Promises”.
# An agreement not enforceable by law is void.
# An agreement enforceable by law is a Contract.
# An agreement that is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto but not at the other or others is a voidable Contract.
# A Contract that ceases to be enforceable by law becomes void when it ceases to be enforceable by law.
# When, at the desire of the Promisor, the Pomisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence is called a consideration for the promise
How Enforceable Is Your Prenuptial Agreement?
Prenuptial agreements have increased in popularity in New Jersey. These agreements are entered into to protect assets and to avoid or limit liability for spousal support and to avoid what could otherwise be a prohibitively expensive divorce.
Obviously prenuptial agreements are not for every couple. A previously divorced individual, for example, might want to safeguard certain marital assets for children of the prior marriage. Others of robust financial standing may seek to enter into prenuptial agreements to assure them that their intended is not planning to marry them for their wealth. Still others may have an ancestral home intended to remain in the family. Prenuptial agreements can be crafted to address these issues.
There is also the issue of interpretation of NJ divorce law at the time of the divorce. Judges have much discretion in applying the facts of the case to the law in a New Jersey divorce. Engaged couples can eliminate some of the guesswork by taking these decisions away from the courts by entering into prenuptial agreements.
Prenuptial agreements are not automatically enforceable. This, despite the unquestionable benefits of expeditiously settling financial issues and notwithstanding the intentions of the parties. NJ Divorce lawyers must be quite conversant with the applicable law, to adequately protect the interests of the prenuptial agreement client.
An agreement is regarded as a contract when it is enforceable by law
Instrumental to the court’s decision was that the initial proposals for the transaction included Federal Realty’s standard non-binding clause, “language that one would see in a non-binding letter of intent,” Braun notes.
The non-binding clause was eventually omitted from the Final Proposal, however. “Apparently, management of Federal Realty wasn’t happy after learning that the draft proposals were not enforceable,” she says. “Therefore, the non-binding clause was removed to ensure that neither party could alter any of the major points of the agreement.”
Once the Final Proposal was signed, however, the two parties could not come to terms on a final agreement. As negotiations continued, First National gave its existing tenant at the property a notice to vacate To annul, set aside, or render void; to surrender possession or occupancy.
The term vacate has two common usages in the law. With respect to real property, to vacate the premises means to give up possession of the property and leave the area totally devoid of contents.
….. Click the link for more information. and asked Federal Realty to reimburse them for the lost rental income. When the real estate market subsequently collapsed, the proposed agreement did as well, and First National sued Federal Realty for breach of the Final Proposal.
”
Child benefit cut plans completely enforceable
A plan to strip high earners of child benefit payments were “completely enforceable” last night amid reports loopholes could force it to be dropped.
Labour accused the coalition of “incompetence” after Treasury sources were reported to have told the Wall Street Journal that the controversial cut was likely to be axed.
Chancellor George Osborne announced at the Conservative Party conference that the benefit would not be paid from 2013 to any households where either parent paid higher-rate income tax.
But the newspaper said officials were struggling to find a way to ensure lower-earning mothers – to whom the payments are made – informed the authorities about how much their partners earned.
Prime Minister David Cameron Editing of this page by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled due to vandalism. has strongly defended the proposal, insisting it is a way of ensuring better-off families bear some of the burden of the coalition’s austerity Austerity
See also Asceticism, Discipline.
Amish
conservative Christian group in North America noted for its simple, orderly life and nonconformist dress. [Am. Hist.
….. Click the link for more information. measures. Critics have pointed out that a two-earner couple making nearly pounds 88,000 a year could keep the payments, while a stay-at-home mother whose partner earned half that would not.
Mr Cameron believes such anomalies are a price to be paid of avoiding the need for a complex means-testing system but Labour said the latest claims undermined that argument.
Shadow Chancellor Alan Johnson said: “The Government has added incompetence to unfairness in their eagerness to cut child benefit.
“We already knew their plan to hit middle earners was unfair, now we’re told it’s also unenforceable Adj. 1. unenforceable – not enforceable; not capable of being brought about by compulsion; “an unenforceable law”; “unenforceable reforms”
Noncompete agreements: a practical–and enforceable–approach
* The agreement must protect a company’s reasonable competitive business interest. Among the pertinent factors in determining whether the agreement protects a reasonable competitive business interest are the employee’s position in the company, and the level and amount of specific competitive information acquired during employment, which may include such areas as trade secrets or special training conferred on the employee (see page 32).
* The agreement must be reasonable as to the length of time the employee is prohibited from working in the line of business. The enforcement of agreements of one or two years in duration is not uncommon.
* The agreement must be reasonable as to the geographic area the employer seeks to prevent the employee from working in. While the employee’s immediate area of employment would most likely be upheld as a reasonable territorial restriction, wider restrictions require a greater showing that the agreement seeks to protect the employer’s reasonable competitive business interest.
* Finally, the agreement’s restrictions on the type of employment or line of business must be reasonable. Courts will look less favorably fa·vor·a·ble
adj.
1. Advantageous; helpful: favorable winds.
2. Encouraging; propitious: a favorable diagnosis.
3. on deliberately vague, over-reaching or “blanket” agreements.
Enforcing the agreement
Michigan courts have enforced and will enforce well-drafted agreements on a case-by-case basis, with remedies that include the issuing of restraining orders restraining order: see injunction. or injunctions and the awarding of monetary damages Monetary damages, in civil law, refers to compensation given to an injured party by a liable party. Monetary damages may be restitution, a penalty, or both. . It is important to note that even if one condition of a noncompete agreement is deemed unenforceable .
E_business Enabler NxLight Announces NxLight Transaction Network; Company Introduces First Real-Time, End-to-End, Enforceable eTransaction Platform.
size=”2″ />
About NxLight
NxLight is a pre-IPO eBusiness enabler based in Orem, Utah Orem is an incorporated town in the north-central part of the state of Utah in Utah County. It is adjacent to Provo, Lindon, and Vineyard and is about 45 miles south of Salt Lake City. As of the 2000 census, the city had a total population of 84,324. .
NxLight has developed the first real-time end-to-end enforceable e-transaction architecture and is the only company to deliver real-time, enforceable, fully automated electronic transactions. NxLight delivers real-time transactions either as a Web service, through the NxLight Transaction Network (NTN) or as an enterprise platform solution.
The NTN is a set of customizable services from NxLight that provide organizations with a robust environment for real-time, end-to-end, enforceable eTransactions. NxLight will make its NTN services available through license agreements, to allow companies to have access to complete eCommerce solutions without having to make heavy infrastructure investments.
“The key factors that enable full eTransactions are the ability to integrate components from multiple data sources and organizations, combined with the ability to provide any level of risk management or privacy required,” said Brent Israelsen, NxLight co-founder and chief executive officer.
According to
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.
2. In keeping with: according to instructions.
3. Forrester Research Forrester Research is an independent technology and market research company that provides its clients with advice about technology’s impact on business and consumers.
The search for enforceable tax practice standards.
The tax code imposes technical standards via its civil and criminal penalty provisions. Several of these provisions apply to tax return preparers as defined in IRC section 7701(a)(36). In general, anyone who prepares an initial tax return or a later amended return Amended Return
A return filed in order to make corrections to a tax return from a previous year. It can be used to correct errors and claim a more advantageous filing.
Notes:
An amended return is filed using Form 1040X. or claim for refund may be classified as a return preparer. Regulations explaining this tax code definition also stress that an individual can be a preparer “without regard to educational qualifications and professional status requirements.”
Several of the tax code’s penalty provisions apply directly to tax return preparers. IRC section 6694(a) imposes a $250 fine on a return preparer if any part of an understatement on a return he or she prepared results from a position “for which there was not a realistic possibility of being sustained on its merits.”
An exception to this rule exists if the position is not frivolous and is disclosed on the return.
Under IRC section 6694(b), a $1,000 penalty may be imposed on a tax return preparer (1) if there is a “willful attempt” to understate un·der·state
v. un·der·stat·ed, un·der·stat·ing, un·der·states
v.tr.
1. To state with less completeness or truth than seems warranted by the facts.
2. tax liability or (2) for any reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations. Proposed regulations under section 6694(b) provide a tax return position contrary to rules and regulations will not be penalized pe·nal·ize
tr.v. pe·nal·ized, pe·nal·iz·ing, pe·nal·iz·es
1. To subject to a penalty, especially for infringement of a law or official regulation. See Synonyms at punish.
2. if it is not frivolous, as long as the position is disclosed.
Other practices standards found in the penalty provisions of the tax code include
* Knowingly aiding or abetting a·bet
tr.v. a·bet·ted, a·bet·ting, a·bets
1. To approve, encourage, and support (an action or a plan of action); urge and help on.
2. in preparation of any document for any tax matter leading to an understatement of tax liability (IRC section 6701).
* Promoting abusive tax shelters Abusive tax shelter
A limited partnership that the IRS judges to be claiming tax deductions illegally.
size=”2″ />
abusive tax shelter
A tax shelter in which an improper interpretation of the law is used to produce tax benefits that are (IRC section 6700).
* Disclosing taxpayer information (IRC sections 6713 and 7216).
* Aiding or assisting in preparation of a false return (IRC section 7206).
size=”2″ />
conduct,” which includes such activities as giving false or misleading information to the IRS, using false or misleading information to attract clients and using abusive language with IRS agents (section 10.51).
A definition of due diligence may be included in future changes to circular 230. According to IRS personnel, this definition is likely to track closely with the regulations interpreting the tax preparer penalty regulations.
A tax practitioner who violate sthe provisions of circular 230 may be suspended or disbarred from IRS practice. In addition, under section 10.74, the IRS director of practice may furnish information about practitioners disciplined by the IRS to proper state authorities. Currently, this information is given to authorities in 13 states and the District of Columbia District of Columbia, federal district (2000 pop. 572,059, a 5.7% decrease in population since the 1990 census), 69 sq mi (179 sq km), on the east bank of the Potomac River, coextensive with the city of Washington, D.C. (the capital of the United States). .
AICPA CODE OF CONDUCT
The professional conduct of all AICPA members is governed by the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. Variations of the ethics code adopted by state CPA societies and board of accountancy govern CPAs who are members of those societies or regulated by those boards. Under the ethics code, CPAs are bound by broad ethical strictures such as the responsibility to
* Be independent (Rule 101).
* Exercise integrity and objectivity (Rule 102).
* Perform in professionally competent manner, exercise due professional care, adequately plan and supervise work and base decisions on sufficient relevant data (Rule 201).
* Maintain client confidentiality The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please [ improve this article] or discuss the issue on the talk page. (Rule 301).
* Avoid acts that discredit the profession (Rule 501).
In addition, Rule 202 and 203 require CPAs to abide by To stand to; to adhere; to maintain.
See also: Abide “technical standards.” However, not all technical standards are enforceable under these rules. The SRTPs are examples of uneforceable technical standards. For purposes of this article, standards under the aegis of Rules 202 and 203 are called enforceable technical standards.
Currently, the only enforceable technical standards are accounting and auditing standards issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the AICPA and the Financial Accounting Standards Board Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
Board composed of independent members who create and interpret Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). . CPAs are not currently bound by any specific enforceable technical standards of tax practice.
SRTPs
Originally issued between 1964 and 1977, the SRTPs were subsequently revised in 1988 and 1991. Their main goal is to educate the public and practitioners as to what might be termed minimal tax practice standards. Although the SRTPs are not enforceable technical standards, they do represent a consensus of the AICPA tax division about what constitutes good, ethical tax practice.
The introduction to the SRTPs says they “are not intended to establish a code of conduct in tax practice that is separate and apart from the general ethical precepts of the Institute’s Code of Professional Conduct.” The topics covered by the SRTPs include the following:
* The standard a CPA tax practitioner must follow when recommending a tax return position to a client, the “realistic possibility standard” (SRTP (Secure RTP) See RTP. no. 1, Tax Return Positions).
* Procedures for answering questions on tax returns (SRTP no. 2, Answers to Questions on Returns).
* Procedural aspects of tax return preparation (SRTP no. 3, Certain Procedural Aspects of Preparing Returns).
* Using estimates (SRTP no. 4, Use of Estimates).
* What to do when departing from a tax return position as concluded in court decision (SRTP no. 5, Departure From a Position Previously Concluded in an Administrative Proceeding An administrative proceeding is a non-judicial determination of fault or guilt and may include in some cases penalties of various forms.
A “Captain’s Mast”, held by a commanding officer of a warship is one such proceeding.
….. Click the link for more information. or Court Decision).
* Recommended procedures when an error is discovered in a prior year’s tax return or during an administrative proceeding (SRTPs nos. 6, Knowledge of Error: Return Preparation, and 7, Knowledge of Error: Ad inistrative Proceeding).
* The form of tax advice (SRTP no. 8, Form and Content of Advice to Clients).
Frequently, an SRTP will parallel practice requirements found elsewhere. For instance, the language in SRTP no. 1 was the basis for the “realistic possibility” language in IRC section 6694(a). On this instance the SRTP can help practitioners by providing more detailed guidance than is found elsewhere.
Other guidance contained in the SRTPs parallels that found in IRS rulings and procedures or in court cases. For example, in Brockhouse v. The United States United States, officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world’s third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area.
….. Click the link for more information., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a negligence penalty (under former IRC section 6694) against a CPA who did not inquire about certain interest payments between a physician and his wholly owned professional corporation. When viewed in conjunction with SRTP no. 3, IRS revenue procedure 80-40 and the proposed regulations under section 6694, this case provides additional guidance on the level of care required of CPAs in tax. practice.
MAINTAINING HIGH
STANDARDS
CPA tax practitioners should consult all of the above sources (including any related regulations) to maintain the highest possible practitioner standards. In today’s dyanamic and competitive business environment, adherence to such minimal practice standards will ensure that CPAs are not subject to penalties or other sanctions. blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/10/28/child-benefit-cut-u
Bebleyogrfy
1)See Buxani v. Nussbaum, 940 S. W. 2d 350, 352 (Tex App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ); and Hallmark v Hand, 885 S.W.2d 471, 476 (Tex.App.-El
2)Paso 1994, writ denied): see also McCulley Fine Arts Gallery, Inc. v “X” Partners, 860 S.W.2d 473, 477 (Tex. App. – El Paso, 1993, 3
See Roark v. Stallworth Oil and Gas Inc., 813 S.W.2d 492,496 (Tex. 1991); and see also Federal Sign v. Texas Southern University, 951 S.W.2d
401,408 (Tex. 1997) rehearing of cause overruled (Oct 02, 1997).
iii Restatement (Second) of Contracts §24 (1981).
iv Restatement (Second) of Contracts §50 (1) (1981).
v United Concrete Pipe Corp. v Spin-Line Co., 430 S.W.2d 360, 364 (Tex. 1968).
vi Antonini v. Harris County Appraisal Dist. 999 S.W.2d 608, 611 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1999, no pet.)
vii Weynand v Weynand, 990 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1999, pet. denied).
viii Copeland v Alsobrook, 3 S.W.2d 598, 604 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1999, pet. denied).
ix Wiley V. Bertelson, 770 S.W.2d 878,882 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1989, no writ).
x Gulf Coast Farmers Co-op v. Valley Co-op Oil Mill. 572 S.W.2d 726, 737(Tex. Civ. App. – Corpus Christi 1978, no writ).
xi Runnells v. Firestone 746 S.W.2d 845, 849 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1988), writ denied per curiam, 870 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1988).
xii Copeland, 3 S.W.3d at 605
xiii T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex. 1992).
xiv Komet v. Graves, 40 S.W.3d 596, 602 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2001, no pet.); Hardin Constr. Group, Inc. v Strictly Painting, Inc. 945 S. W. 2d
308, 313 (Tex App. – San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding): Texas Oil Co. v. Tenneco Inc., 917 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]
1994), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. v. Texas Oil Co., 958 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. 1997).
xv T.O. Stanley Boot Co., 847 S.W.2d at 221; Scott v. Ingle Bros. Pac., Inc. 489 S.W. 2d 554, 555 (Tex. 1972); Texas Oil Co, 917 S.W.2d at 830;
Komet, 40 S.W.3d at 602.