Example 2: «The long - standing rule in Texas provides for employment at will, terminable at any time by either party, with or without cause,
absent an express agreement to the contrary.»
More recently, the courts have changed their position on this point; while a sale is still considered to result in termination of employment, the law presumes that an employee of the vendor who is hired by the purchaser is entitled to have his or her time spent in employment with the vendor taken into account for reasonable notice purposes,
absent express agreement to the contrary.
Not exact matches
It even contained an
express governing law and jurisdiction clause, the purpose of which the court found difficult to understand «
absent an intention to create a legally binding
agreement».
(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that
express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr
express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products,
absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting
agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.
Regarding damages, the Court noted that «an agent acting pursuant to an
express appointment may recover the fair... value of services rendered, even
absent an explicit compensation
agreement.»
The court held that
absent an
express or implied
agreement, defendants had not conspired to boycott the plaintiff when they independently decided not to co-broke with him after he went to a flat - fee commission...
Curtis Properties Corp. v. Greif Companies (212 A.D. 2d 259)- lease; exclusive agency
agreement; written commission
agreement terminated; recovery allowed under quantum meruit for implied contract; commission entitlement under implied contract where broker brought parties together; party may not frustrate the performance of an
agreement by bringing about the failure of a condition precedent; court will not imply exclusive right to deal
absent express language.