Kleinman v. Lack

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• using inter changeably \obligation to exploit\ with \promise... to use reasonable diligence to exploit\ and \obligation to use due diligence to exploit\ when interpreting New York law
• using interchangeably “obligation to exploit” with “promise ... to use reasonable diligence to exploit” and “obligation to use due diligence to exploit” when interpreting New York law
• finding minimum royalty payment provision that “doesn’t obligate defendant to the payment of minimum royalties” irrelevant, even where plaintiffs “recourse for defendant’s failure to complete the annual minimum payment was to withdraw the license”
• finding minimum royalty payment provision that \doesn't obligate defendant to the payment of minimum royalties\ irrelevant, even where plaintiff's \recourse for defendant's failure to complete the annual minimum payment was to withdraw the license\
• minimum royalty payment not guaranteed so best efforts obligation necessary to provide consideration for exclusive licensing agreement
• “[T]hat a specific promise has not been expressly stated does not always mean that it was not intended.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).