In Haas v. Viscardi, 2018 ONSC 2883 (CanLII) the complainant made a $200,000 claim based on fraudulent false statements with three defendants. The transaction agreement provided for different payments from the defendant on specific dates. The transaction agreement required Viscardi to make payments of $30,000 in three installments. If Viscardi did not make the payments on the specified dates, the settlement agreement provided that Viscardi would approve the verdict for $60,000 (the “Consent Judgment Clause”). Viscardi made a payment of $10,000 but did not make the remaining two payments, which is contrary to the transaction agreement. He then refused to approve the judgment. The applicant applied for the transaction agreement and sought a summary decision. The judge rejected Viscardi`s argument that the approval clause was an unenforceable punitive clause.
The judge considered whether a liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable sentence: … In addition the court ordered the Amtsgericht to apply the transaction contract during the pre-trial detention procedure. Under the settlement agreement, Casper had to pay Serta Simmons 300,000 $US in 10 days, stop manufacturing the offending product two weeks later and “essentially cease marketing and advertising the offending products” a month later. In addition, the transaction agreement required the parties to submit “appropriate rejection documents” of all claims and counter-claims within five days of Casper`s payment and provided that the parties “file a joint request to stay the matter until final settlement.” On the date of the transaction agreement, the parties, in accordance with their terms, filed a joint letter of appeal informing the District Court that they had “entered into a transaction agreement” and again requested that all deadlines remain for just over two weeks “until the [P]arties believe they have received the corresponding redundancy documents”. In Dish v. Shava, 2018 ONSC 2867 (CanLII), the plaintiffs were tried in Virginia, including an injunction, against the Ontario-based defendants. The applicants then filed a lawsuit in Ontario for the recognition and enforcement of the sentence and the order of reference in Ontario. With respect to the motion for summary judgment, the Ontario Court of Justice considered whether the Virginia court had exercised jurisdiction on the basis of the Ontario test, that is, whether the defendants had a real and substantial connection to Virginia.
The accused owned and operated an interactive and commercial website through which users purchased television set-top boxes. The Ontario court found that the accused, because of the nature of the cases they operated, had a truly substantial connection to Virginia, in particular: users in Virginia purchased the tray boxes from the defendant`s website. At least 193 customers with a Virginia delivery address purchased the Product of Shava Television by the defendant`s distributor … Read more Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett -Dunner, LLP. DISCLAIMER: Although we want to hear from you, the information exchanged on this blog cannot and does not create any lawyer-client relationship.