Pledge Or Agreement

In case of car seizure, the object of security is a vehicle (car, motorcycle, special machines, boats, etc.). Under the terms of the contract, the mortgaged vehicle may remain in use of the mortgage vehicle and be handed over to the creditor for retention during the term of the credit agreement. Then, the mortgaged property is seized and sold at an auction, and the bond is repaid with the funds received from the sale of the property. The deposit contract must contain information relating to the subject of the deposit (trademarks, patents), the amount and duration of the performance of the obligation secured by the pledge. The deposit contract can be concluded in simple written form. However, if security is real estate, the contract must be notarized and registered. If the debtor (the pledge holder) does not satisfy the obligation secured by the deposit, the creditor (the creditor) has the right to satisfy his claim on the value of the mortgaged asset. If a deposit contract is not registered, the pledge holder does not have the right to seize the mortgaged trademarks or patents. The holder of pledges and the holder of pledges under this Agreement may be legal and natural persons. This is an agreement that helps to fulfill certain obligations of the rights holder, for example the repayment of the loan. Like what. 10.) Remarkably, and unlike the share deposit contract, no single shareholder, with the exception of Patrick, expressly agreed in writing to the terms of the amendment to 4.

The respondents rightly point out that there is still a dispute over a lawyer`s fees allegedly lower than the original rating. . Переводите текст из любого приложения или веб-сайта одним щелчком мыши. Индекс слова: 1-300, 301-600, 601-900, Больше And in accordance with the terms of the shareholders` agreement, the share seizure agreement was signed by Patrick Yu, Raymond Yu, Catherine Yu, Bong Yu and May Yu, that is, holders of at least 51% of the total outstanding shares, in their individual capacity as shareholders. The share seizure agreement may have stated that the petitioner „did not have the right to exercise voting rights and/or rights and powers by mutual agreement,“ but it did not remove the voting rights of the shares themselves. Since it is indisputable that the petitioner remains the holder of at least 20% of Moklam`s voting shares, the permanent conditions of BCL § 1104-a are met. To the extent that Party B has remaining rights with respect to equity interests that are governed by this Agreement, or under Party B`s interest equity pledge agreement or as part of the mandate given in favour of Party A, Party B may only exercise such rights in accordance with Party A`s written instructions. Therefore, the restrictions imposed by the pledge agreement are directly contrary to public policy and the Court of Justice should do so as such. Результатов: 160. Точных совпадений: 1.

Time spent: 204 ms. . . .