The client of Jusguard reached an agreement on producing the singer. Based on the contract, the producer was going to invest in concert activities. In this case, the producer feared violations by the singer.
The company's specialists have prepared a contract, according to which:
1) the producer received exclusive rights to the entire creative activity of the singer;
2) financial obligations excluded the possibility for the singer to ignore the contract or terminate it;
3) the rights and obligations of both the producer and the singer were clearly described;
4) the section “Responsibility” provided for the widest possible list of violations for which sanctions could be imposed on the party, up to inappropriate behavior of the singer or refusal to sing.
The Jusguard's specialists have prepared a contract, according to which:
1) the producer received exclusive rights to the entire creative activity of the singer;
2) financial obligations excluded the possibility for the singer to ignore the contract or terminate it;
3) the rights and obligations of both the producer and the singer were clearly described;
4) the section “Responsibility” provided for the widest possible list of violations for which sanctions could be imposed on the party, up to inappropriate behavior of the singer or refusal to sing.
Draw up a producer agreement that protects the interests of the producer as much as possible.
The producer agreement has been signed by the parties and is currently being successfully implemented.
A subsidiary of the Ministry of Defense did not pay the supplier the cost of tires and tire fitting. It also did not respond to the claim demanding debt repayment.
Start of the case - August 21, 2018.
Completion of the case - October 22, 2018.
After a lawsuit to recover the debt, the debtor, without waiting for a court decision, repaid the debt in full.
Considering that the debtor did not respond to the directed claims, it was decided to go to court with a lawsuit for recovery of debt and legal costs.
To repay the debt of a subsidiary of the Ministry of Defense for tires received under the supply contract and tire fitting.
After filing a lawsuit with the court, the debt was repaid by the debtor in full.
A client of Jusguard has acquired the right to use educational technology. Than, the right holder filed a lawsuit in connection with the fact that the user allegedly did not pay the full lump-sum fee. The right holder claimed that the amount of the lump sum fee was 20 000 $, whereas only 10 000 $ received the current account of the right holder.
Start of the case - August 29, 2016.
Completion of the case - June 29, 2017.
As a result, the lawyers of Jusguard proved that at the time of signing the contract the first part of the lump sum payment in the amount of 10 000 $ was paid, and the amount received at the rightholder’s account is the second part of the lump-sum fee.
The Attorney Sergei Chaplian consistently defended the position in the court that the user had paid the lump-sum fee in full, and the payment of the first part of the fee was confirmed by the agreement itself, and the second part was confirmed by bank receipts. The courts supported these arguments.
Represent the interests of the client - the defendant in the case of debt collection. Convince the courts of unfounded claims.
The court decisions in the first, appeal and cassation instances were taken in favor of the client of Jusguard. The Supreme Court of Ukraine did not find grounds for reviewing these decisions.
A legal body filed a lawsuit against the client of Jusguard with the demand to invalidate an agreement on land lease entered into between Vorzel Village Council and the Client of Jusguard. Stated claims gave as the reason that the land rental agreement was made in contravention of mandatory procedure for the land tenders.
As a defense the lawyers of the firm proved that considering the existence of immovable property on disputable land plot that is the property of the defendant, the procedure of land tenders wasn’t obligatory. Consequently, the complaints of the claimant are groundless.
To protect the client’s interests in dispute regarding land leasing agreement invalidation.
The First Instance Court, the Court of Appeal and Cassation Court have passed a verdict in the defendant's favor, the client of Jusguard.
The client of Jusguard is the company dealing with SEO website promotion, contacted with the question of contract preparation on software development for the systems of SEO promotion with maximum respect the interests of the customer.
The lawyers of the company prepared the text of the agreement in which were carefully specified obligations of the parties, including financial, warranty, solidarity, as well as intellectual property rights to software.
To prepare the agreement on software development.
The prepared draft of the agreement extensively protects the interests of the customer, and creates conditions for the quickest possible and performance of work in good faith.
The representative of farming industry filed a claim in Commercial Court of Kyiv city against the client of Jusguard concerning the obligation to organize accounting verification of mutual settlements for the period 2011-2013, and to submit accounting documents for this period.
Company’s lawyers drew court’s attention to insufficiency of the demands since they: 1) aren’t contractual, i.e. similar obligations aren’t regulated by the agreement; 2) are non-statutory, i.e. the legislation doesn’t involve such method of violated rights protection.
To ensure protection of client’s interest in dispute on verification of mutual settlements.
The decision was made for the benefit of the client of Jusguard and came into legal force.