Pledge Or Agreement

Pledge Or Agreement

The deposit contract can be concluded in a simple written form. However, if security is real estate, the contract must be notarized and registered. The pledgee and the contractor, in accordance with the terms of this agreement, may be legal and physical entities. The consignment agreement must contain information relating to the issue of deposit (marks, patents), the amount and duration of the commitment guaranteed by the collateral. It is an agreement that helps to ensure certain obligations of the rights holder, for example. B the repayment of the loan. The mortgaged property is then confiscated and sold at auction, and the commitment is repaid with funds from the sale of the property. If the debtor (the pawnbroker) does not fulfil the obligation guaranteed by the deposit, the creditor (the holder of the pledge) is allowed to honour his debt on the value of the mortgaged property. In case of car seizure, the object of safety is a vehicle (car, motorcycle, special machines, boats, etc.). Under the terms of the contract, the mortgaged vehicle may remain in use of the Mortgagor and be returned to the creditor for the duration of the credit contract.

If a deposit contract is not registered, the pawn giver does not have the right to seize the mortgaged trademarks or patents. Therefore, the restrictions imposed by the action agreement are directly contrary to public policy and the Court of Justice should be considered as such. To the extent that Part B still has rights to the holdings submitted to this agreement or under the Part B Equity Interest Pledge Agreement or as part of the right power granted in favour of Part A, Part B exercises these rights only in accordance with the written instructions of Part A. – 1-300, 301-600, 601-900, 160. Точных совпадений: 1. Затраченное время: 204 мс . Again, the action seizure agreement may have established that the petitioner is not entitled to „exercise voting rights and/or consensual powers,“ but it has not abolished the voting rights of the shares themselves. As it is indisputable that the petitioner remains the holder of at least 20% of Moklam`s voting shares, the constant requirements of BCL 1104-a are met. Z.M. 10.) In particular, and contrary to the action agreement, no shareholder, with the exception of Patrick, expressly accepted in writing the terms of the amendment of 4 respondents, according to which there remains a dispute over the legal fees that would have been pending after the original note. And in accordance with the terms of the shareholders` agreement, the share agreement was signed as „approved by heres than“ Patrick Yu, Raymond Yu, Catherine Yu, Bong Yu and May Yu, i.e. the holders of no less than 51% of the total outstanding shares as individual shareholders.

Teilen Sie diesen Beitrag