Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
ATAS/82/2006 • CJ GE ATAS/82/2006 Généré par l'IA

Revenue Share Agreement Consideration Dispute

Numéro de cause ATAS/82/2006
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Miroir Entscheidsuche Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The dispute centered on whether an agreement, which required a party to pay specific percentages of future revenues derived from specified technologies, was supported by consideration, given that the underlying technology had been previously developed and transferred without payment for that specific revenue stream. The court reasoned that the agreement was enforceable because it constituted a bargained-for exchange where the promise to pay a percentage of future revenues was consideration for the other party's promise to refrain from asserting certain contractual rights and to provide ongoing cooperation related to the technology transfer, thereby supporting the finding that a valid contract existed.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Revenue Share Agreement Consideration Dispute: The court reasoned that the agreement was enforceable because it constituted a bargained-for exchange where the promise to pay a percentage of future revenues was consideration for the other party's promise to refrain from asserting certain contractual rights and to provide ongoing cooperation related to the technology transfer, thereby supporting the finding that a valid contract existed.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
contre-prestation contractuelle promesse de payer transfert des actions règlement du litige répartition de marché accord d'entreprise

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF
The court ordered the appellant to pay the procedural costs of the appeal.
Généré par l'IA
A/2252/2005
Settlement Agreement Consideration Dispute
C/4183/2007
Settlement Agreement Consideration in Dispute Resolution
C/17811/2014
Commission Sharing Dispute and Partial Partnership Finding
A/3797/2006
Contract Enforceability and Consideration Dispute
C/11735/2015
Settlement Agreement Interpretation: Share Possession vs. Payment Obligation

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

The court ordered the appellant to pay the procedural costs of the appeal.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

                

 !

  "# $""# !  "$! $ #!

$%&   ' ( )*  



&#!%%'(!  ) *    %

 ." " !"!/#! !" .0! ! ""! /!"#!/!" 1" $!! !%+ !,-.-,/,,   /0 !"#!$%  ! %$$&#!%%'(!  ) *    %



! 

.. $! $""# ! #2 "$! "0#  !  $!$# %1+2!3/.,/,,   ,4



       

   )/5/)

 #% 6

& 7!% 8  %/+%#9 /--.%$!: 5,2/;5-4<6

%$% !$%%!$ %4- /--3!4,="$ /--.6

> %$! "!  !$= ?&$"$!%&!# $ 6  $! / . #!  "# $""# !  "$! $ #! ' 4556   7

856+6&& 9 4: ; < #=>

,@ !A8  B ' %?& !$   @

/@  ! A &  %  ?&$   %#$$ %! !   ! %   %#$$ %&! $ %  !!$       #%C)!D# !$? %$#     %$ E! 9 A &E! FGGGGGGGGGG A   % ! $E H$ $9  $!$ %  !@ ,+   ! ,-   %  $  %#$@

4@ >1%!!?%9$@

3@ !H !$%?%#E" %  !!E$H#A2.-E @

.@  $!$ % > !@ .-   $E    !$ %  ?> "! E     !    #!  7! %  %#$ % 4- =  %I  !$E$!$   $ %# % #  $9 E#%#  %   BDJ$K DE?$ 0 0--3   ! $H$ @%#$!7!  C#@#$ %$!L< $%$? H!!?%#$$  !%#$ 9!$ $! % %#$$!!?#69<H  ?!$E$!$"$ %% !!!  %#$$6< ! $C! %  #!!@B$#$ !$!   ! $ ##! ## #  !!  < 9< ! < $)%  $9 E#%#  %       !    !$I       ?>$ %"  %#   $ "9@  #$  %   !$     1 %  " ?$  ! =$! $$ ?  %#$$ !!?# ! >" % ?   #!# H#%$#  !: !@,4/,-0!,-;<@

 C EE$ L  #$%!L

$  B 9B

$E % #! 7!!!$E$#H !$ C EE



5//,-5/--3