Agreement in Toto

the provisions of any contract of employment or contract of employment or its provisions by which a foreign or domestic employer or any other natural or legal person incorporates or attempts to include or attempt to include a jurisdiction clause or a choice of law clause in an employee`s employment contract or collective agreement, either a jurisdiction clause or a choice of law clause in a civil or administrative action to which an employee is a party; is null and void, unless the jurisdiction clause or the choice of law clause is expressly, knowingly and voluntarily approved and ratified by the employee after the occurrence of the incident that is the subject of the civil or administrative action. What made you decide to look in toto? Please let us know where you read or heard it (including the quote if possible). Toto sued SME for breach of its various record-keeping agreements entered into between 1977 and 2002 (the “Agreements”). SME had paid royalties for Toto`s digital music sales (via iTunes and Amazon) in accordance with the contractual terms covering record sales of SMEs or its “licensees” through normal retail channels. Toto argued that sme should have paid a higher royalty under another contractual provision that covered the “rental” of major sound recordings because MSS`s agreements with third-party licensees such as iTunes constituted “leases”. SME submitted that downloads sold through licensed digital retailers represent sales by “licensees” through normal retail channels and that the music industry`s understanding of the term “rental” is limited to special licenses for recording sound recordings on third-party products such as compilation albums. The court clearly sided with SMEs, noting that the clear wording of the agreements broadly defined the term “licensee” to include authorized resellers such as iTunes. Interestingly, the Court also relied on MSS`s undisputed evidence of phonogram industry practices to conclude that the plain language of the agreements was clear (whereas evidence of industry customs is generally used to clarify or interpret ambiguous contractual terms). Mss` industry-specific evidence showed that the term “leasing” was indeed generally understood as “a licence that allows a third party to incorporate the licensor`s record into its own product”. As a result, the court ruled that the lower royalty rate for the sale to licensees applies to digital downloads of Toto`s music, not the higher “rental rate.” Since sme had paid Toto according to the correct duration of the contract, there was no breach of contract and the court issued a summary judgment in favour of SME. All requests regarding these Terms and Conditions are addressed to (in toe-toe) adj. Latin for “complete” or “total”, which refers to the whole, as in “the goods were destroyed in toto” or “the case was dismissed in toto”. 4.5 Delivery is free of charge using a freight forwarder selected by TOTO Europe (e.B.

Deutsche Post / DHL, parcel, train or freight forwarding services). An extraordinary agreement to deliver the paid transport only covers normal freight. The validity of non-compete obligations in Louisiana is strictly controlled by a single legal provision – Louisiana Revised Statutes § 23: 921 – and its judicial interpretation. Louisiana Revised Statutes § 23: 921 (A) (1) begins with the general prohibition of any agreement in which “any person is deterred from carrying on any legal profession, trade or business,” unless one of the narrow exceptions to the general prohibition contained therein is met. These sample sentences are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “in toto”. The opinions expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us your feedback. The Toto case is an example of how these digital licensing disputes can be contract-specific. Given the number of unique hosting agreements, the number of de facto swaps is likely as diverse as the number of artists who have filed a lawsuit in response to FBT.

To date, these artists include at least the following: Chuck D, Sister Sledge, Rob Zombie, Rick James, the Allman Brothers, Cheap Trick, Kenny Rogers, Michael McDonald, George Clinton, Peter Frampton, Weird Al Yankovic and the Counting Crows (the accused include Sony, Warner, UMG and Capitol). Some of these disputes are still ongoing, and others have been resolved, but there will certainly be more decisions to come, each tailored to the unique facts and wording of the respective contract. Given the likely to remain unpredictable case law, it is important that artists and other signatories to record-keeping agreements fully understand how they are paid for transactions processed through today`s most ubiquitous revenue channels. With technology known to surpass the law, artists should pay close attention to how they are paid through still new but fast-growing services such as Spotify, Google Play Music and Beats Music, and contact a competent lawyer in the digital music industry to better understand the strange terms of today`s recording contracts. `Any contract or agreement or provision thereof which prevents any person from pursuing a lawful profession, trade or transaction of any kind whatsoever, except in the cases provided for in this Section, shall be null and void.` The Buyer will cooperate with TOTO Europe in all tax matters relating to the contracts concluded between the Buyer and TOTO Europe. Once it is proven that a particular non-compete obligation falls within one of the listed exceptions, most Louisiana courts require that a valid non-compete obligation include an area of prohibition described by municipalities, municipalities or parts thereof, as well as a maximum of two years from the date of termination of the relationship. These requirements flow directly from the wording of the act. 11.3 If any provision of these Terms and Conditions or a provision in other agreements with the Buyer is or becomes invalid, this shall not affect the validity of all other provisions of these Terms and Conditions or other agreements in case of doubt. “In toto.” Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Accessed December 10, 2020. Businesses and individuals outside of Louisiana who want to do business there are often surprised by Louisiana`s non-compete clause. Louisiana does not use an adequacy test to determine the validity of non-compete obligations.

On the contrary, contracts that restrict a person`s right to work are considered invalid in Louisiana. .