{"component": "clause", "props": {"groups": [{"snippet": "The Contracting Parties, in order to achieve the objective of arriv- ing at as uniform an application and interpretation as possible of the provisions of this Agreement, shall keep under constant review the development of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, as well as the development of the case law of the competent courts of Iceland and Norway relating to these provisions and to those of similar surrender instruments. To this end a mechanism shall be set up to ensure regular mutual transmission of such case law.", "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-contracting-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [0, 23]}, {"key": "in-order-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [25, 36]}, {"key": "the-objective", "type": "clause", "offset": [45, 58]}, {"key": "application-and-interpretation", "type": "clause", "offset": [90, 120]}, {"key": "provisions-of-this-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [140, 168]}, {"key": "the-case", "type": "definition", "offset": [222, 230]}, {"key": "court-of-justice", "type": "definition", "offset": [242, 258]}, {"key": "european-communities", "type": "clause", "offset": [266, 286]}, {"key": "competent-courts", "type": "clause", "offset": [338, 354]}, {"key": "relating-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [377, 388]}, {"key": "to-ensure", "type": "clause", "offset": [493, 502]}], "samples": [{"hash": "hKBv2tj0lE9", "uri": "/contracts/hKBv2tj0lE9#case-law", "label": "Surrender Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}, {"hash": "2w1z6Hb0P5", "uri": "/contracts/2w1z6Hb0P5#case-law", "label": "Surrender Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "size": 3, "hash": "8c4a13360237dbe16366101b55dad141", "id": 1}, {"snippet": "The enforcement of Canadian competition law takes place by the Competition Bureau1058 or a private party bringing a case before the Competition Tribunal. Subsequently an appeal may be lodged before the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). If allowed, a further appeal may be brought before the Canadian Supreme Court. Before discussing the landmark Canada Pipe judgment by the FCA, it is apt to examine three rulings by the Competition Tribunal to provide sufficient context on the issue of justifications. These judgments are Nielsen, Tele-\u00ad\u2010Direct and NutraSweet. The Nielsen case focused on the use of exclusive contracts to deny (potential) competitors access to scanner data used for market tracking services.1059 The Tribunal examined whether the exclusive agreements were based on a valid \u2018business justification\u2019 rather than an anti-\u00ad\u2010competitive purpose.1060 The Tribunal held that it may consider \u2018any credible efficiency or pro-\u00ad\u2010competitive business justification\u2019. I believe that this terminology aptly reflects the wide range of available justification pleas. The Tribunal also noted that the justification plea must be weighed \u2018in light of any anti-\u00ad\u2010competitive effects\u2019 with the aim \u2018to establish the overriding purpose\u2019 of the challenged act.1061 I agree that such a balancing test is indeed instructive by accommodating all the different grounds and implications that can be attributed to the conduct under review.1062 1057 See \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 et al., supra note 1055, at 528: \u2018efficiency considerations are crucial to deciding whether an act has the requisite anti-\u00ad\u2010competitive purposes to be classified as an \u201canti-\u00ad\u2010competitive act\u201d pursuant to section 79\u2019. 1058 Formally speaking, Competition Tribunal cases were brought by the Director of Investigation and Research or, more recently, the Commissioner of Competition. 1059 Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v D&B Companies of Canada (\u2018Nielsen\u2019), [1995] CT-\u00ad\u20101994-\u00ad\u2010001. 1060 Ibid., at 67. 1061 Ibid., at 69. Confirmed by Tele-\u00ad\u2010Direct (infra note 1063), at 259. 1062 As long as \u2018purpose\u2019 is not simply equated with subjective intent, which does not seem to be the case. The Tele-\u00ad\u2010Direct ruling largely confirmed these principles.1063 The Competition Bureau argued that Tele-\u00ad\u2010 Direct (a company active in the telephone directory market) had behaved anti-\u00ad\u2010competitively, in particular by tying advertising space to sales services and refusing to deal with advertising consultants. The Tribunal used a weighing exercise, holding that a business justification is a relevant factor to decide whether an act is, on balance, anti-\u00ad\u2010competitive or not \u2013 other relevant factors include subjective intent and the actual effects arising from the conduct.1064 The Tribunal may reject a business justification if the impugned act is not \u2018in the public interest\u2019 or \u2018socially beneficial\u2019.1065 I agree that there is no clear reason to condone anti-\u00ad\u2010competitive behaviour if the alleged benefits only accrue to the firm with market power.1066 On the facts, the Tribunal accepted that Tele-\u00ad\u2010Direct\u2019s conduct was justified in order to protect certain commercial interests, such as securing payment for its services.1067 The Tribunal also found that the conduct was justified because it facilitated customers to understand with whom they are dealing; even though this plea had not actually been raised by Tele-\u00ad\u2010Direct.1068 The NutraSweet case revolved around various contract clauses between NutraSweet and its customers for the purchase of aspartame, an artificial sweetener.1069 Allegedly these contract arrangements required or induced exclusivity, creating barriers for NutraSweet\u2019s (potential) competitors. NutraSweet held that the arrangements were justified, arguing that risks and costs are reduced if only a single supplier holds inventory.1070 Although the Tribunal did accept that efficiencies are relevant while assessing whether conduct can substantially lessen competition, it rejected NutraSweet\u2019s plea on the facts. The Tribunal held that \u2018[i]t can always be claimed that the risk and cost of holding plant and 1063 Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v Tele-\u00ad\u2010Direct, [1997] CT-\u00ad\u20101994-\u00ad\u2010003. 1064 Ibid., at 259 (referring to Nielsen, supra note 1059). The Tribunal confirmed this position in Air Canada, infra note 1086, at 55. 1065 Ibid., at 215-\u00ad\u2010216 and 248-\u00ad\u2010249. 1066 An interesting example in UK competition law is Genzyme v OFT, [2004] CAT 4, at 583. 1067 Tele-\u00ad\u2010Direct, supra note 1063, at 349-\u00ad\u2010350. Here, the Tribunal examines Tele-\u00ad\u2010Direct\u2019s refusal to deal with consultants who do not accept responsibility for payment for the advertising. 1068 Ibid., at 357-\u00ad\u2010358. In a minority view, \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587. held Tele-\u00ad\u2010Direct had not advanced \u2018any valid business justification\u2019 (ibid., at 359-\u00ad\u2010360). 1069 Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v The NutraSweet, [1990] CT-\u00ad\u20101989-\u00ad\u2010002. 1070 Ibid., at 90. The Tribunal considered that the impugned conduct leaves (i) customers, on balance, better off and", "snippet_links": [{"key": "enforcement-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [4, 18]}, {"key": "competition-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [28, 43]}, {"key": "competition-bureau", "type": "definition", "offset": [63, 81]}, {"key": "competition-tribunal", "type": "definition", "offset": [132, 152]}, {"key": "an-appeal", "type": "clause", "offset": [167, 176]}, {"key": "court-of-appeal", "type": "clause", "offset": [210, 225]}, {"key": "further-appeal", "type": "clause", "offset": [247, 261]}, {"key": "the-canadian", "type": "clause", "offset": [284, 296]}, {"key": "supreme-court", "type": "clause", "offset": [297, 310]}, {"key": "to-provide", "type": "definition", "offset": [439, 449]}, {"key": "the-issue", "type": "clause", "offset": [472, 481]}, {"key": "exclusive-contracts", "type": "clause", "offset": [599, 618]}, {"key": "access-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [651, 660]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "clause", "offset": [773, 781]}, {"key": "business-justification", "type": "clause", "offset": [791, 813]}, {"key": "wide-range", "type": "definition", "offset": [1023, 1033]}, {"key": "to-establish", "type": "clause", "offset": [1195, 1207]}, {"key": "i-agree-that", "type": "clause", "offset": [1259, 1271]}, {"key": "see-\u2587", "type": "clause", "offset": [1437, 1442]}, {"key": "an-act", "type": "definition", "offset": [1544, 1550]}, {"key": "pursuant-to-section", "type": "definition", "offset": [1645, 1664]}, {"key": "director-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1741, 1752]}, {"key": "investigation-and-research", "type": "clause", "offset": [1753, 1779]}, {"key": "commissioner-of-competition", "type": "definition", "offset": [1803, 1830]}, {"key": "the-case", "type": "definition", "offset": [2138, 2146]}, {"key": "telephone-directory", "type": "definition", "offset": [2288, 2307]}, {"key": "in-particular", "type": "clause", "offset": [2350, 2363]}, {"key": "advertising-space", "type": "definition", "offset": [2373, 2390]}, {"key": "services-and", "type": "clause", "offset": [2400, 2412]}, {"key": "other-relevant-factors", "type": "clause", "offset": [2627, 2649]}, {"key": "in-the-public-interest", "type": "definition", "offset": [2806, 2828]}, {"key": "benefits-only", "type": "clause", "offset": [2953, 2966]}, {"key": "the-firm", "type": "clause", "offset": [2977, 2985]}, {"key": "the-facts", "type": "clause", "offset": [3012, 3021]}, {"key": "in-order-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [3088, 3099]}, {"key": "commercial-interests", "type": "clause", "offset": [3116, 3136]}, {"key": "securing-payment", "type": "clause", "offset": [3146, 3162]}, {"key": "contract-clauses", "type": "clause", "offset": [3432, 3448]}, {"key": "purchase-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [3494, 3505]}, {"key": "the-arrangements", "type": "clause", "offset": [3698, 3714]}, {"key": "risks-and-costs", "type": "clause", "offset": [3744, 3759]}, {"key": "the-risk", "type": "definition", "offset": [4053, 4061]}, {"key": "cost-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [4066, 4073]}, {"key": "referring-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [4206, 4218]}, {"key": "air-canada", "type": "definition", "offset": [4286, 4296]}, {"key": "payment-for-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [4617, 4632]}, {"key": "impugned-conduct", "type": "definition", "offset": [4944, 4960]}, {"key": "better-off", "type": "clause", "offset": [4995, 5005]}], "samples": [{"hash": "3mnn9irmFiM", "uri": "/contracts/3mnn9irmFiM#case-law", "label": "Not Applicable", "score": 21.4202600958, "published": true}], "size": 1, "hash": "b74e685db5cba9888e8dbd12dec9a869", "id": 2}, {"snippet": "The Singaporean public enforcement procedure in Singapore is similar to that of the UK. The CCS can adopt an infringement decision if it finds that a company has acted contrary to the SCA. Such a decision can be appealed to the Competition Appeal Board (CAB).1129 A further appeal is open to the High Court,1130 and finally to the Court of Appeal \u2013 Singapore\u2019s highest court. The 2010 SISTIC decision was the first case in which the CCS found an abuse.1131 The decision held that SISTIC, the dominant ticketing company in Singapore, contravened Section 47 SCA by foreclosing competition in the ticketing services market through a web of exclusive agreements.1132 1124 Ibid., at 11.4. 1125 Ibid., at 11.6. 1126 Ibid., at 11.6. 1127 Ibid., at 11.12. 1128 Ibid., at 11.16. 1129 Sections 71 and 72 SCA. 1130 Section 74 SCA. 1131 CCS decision of June 2010, SISTIC, available at \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587://\u2587\u2587\u2587.\u2587\u2587\u2587.\u2587\u2587\u2587.\u2587\u2587/content/dam/ccs/PDFs/Public_register_and_consultation/Public_register/Abuse_of_Domi \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587/SISTIC%20Infringement%20Decision%20(Non-\u00ad\u2010confidential%20version).pdf. Referring to its own guidelines, the CCS devotes an entire chapter on the examination of objective justification.1133 The CCS examined whether the following conditions applied: 1134\n1. The conduct was in defence of a legitimate commercial interest,\n2. The firm has not taken more restrictive measures than were necessary,\n3. The restriction resulted in certain benefits;\n4. The restrictions are proportionate to the claimed benefits. On the facts, the CCS rejected SISTIC\u2019s plea that exclusivity was necessary to maintain investments, holding that it is competition, rather than immunity from competition, that fosters investment and innovation.1135 In addition, the CCS held that SISTIC failed the necessity test,1136 as it had not demonstrated that its investments were (i) specific and (ii) directly attributable to the exclusivity agreements.1137 The approach by the CCS makes sense, as there is no reason to condone behaviour because of benefits that would have arisen even without that conduct. The CCS also noted that the conduct under review does not meet the proportionality test, as third-\u00ad\u2010party event promoters (a group which it considers one of the \u2018stakeholders\u2019) do not benefit from the discounts.1138 It is unclear why the CCS has relied on this observation. As the SCA statute is clearly geared towards encouraging efficient market conduct,1139 it is unclear why every stakeholder should necessarily benefit from the conduct under review. 1132 The CCS found that SISTIC was the dominant ticketing service provider in Singapore with a persistent market share of around 85-\u00ad\u201095%. 1133 See Chapter 8 of the SISTIC decision, supra note 1131. This chapter provides several references to case law by the European Court of Justice. 1134 Ibid., at 8.1.2. The CCS refers to at 4.4 of the CCS guidelines (supra note 1117). 1135 Ibid., at 8.2.2. and 8.2.3. The CCS refers to the Second Reading speech for the Competition Bill on 19 October 2004. 1136 Ibid. See e.g. at 8.2.12. and 8.2.13. Unfortunately large parts are left blank due to confidentiality.", "snippet_links": [{"key": "enforcement-procedure", "type": "clause", "offset": [23, 44]}, {"key": "similar-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [61, 71]}, {"key": "contrary-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [168, 179]}, {"key": "appeal-board", "type": "definition", "offset": [240, 252]}, {"key": "further-appeal", "type": "clause", "offset": [266, 280]}, {"key": "and-finally", "type": "clause", "offset": [312, 323]}, {"key": "the-court-of-appeal", "type": "clause", "offset": [327, 346]}, {"key": "the-decision", "type": "clause", "offset": [457, 469]}, {"key": "company-in", "type": "clause", "offset": [511, 521]}, {"key": "ticketing-services", "type": "definition", "offset": [594, 612]}, {"key": "available-at", "type": "definition", "offset": [860, 872]}, {"key": "referring-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [1056, 1068]}, {"key": "the-examination", "type": "clause", "offset": [1126, 1141]}, {"key": "legitimate-commercial-interest", "type": "definition", "offset": [1273, 1303]}, {"key": "the-firm", "type": "clause", "offset": [1308, 1316]}, {"key": "restrictive-measures", "type": "clause", "offset": [1336, 1356]}, {"key": "certain-benefits", "type": "clause", "offset": [1409, 1425]}, {"key": "the-restrictions", "type": "clause", "offset": [1430, 1446]}, {"key": "claimed-benefits", "type": "clause", "offset": [1472, 1488]}, {"key": "the-facts", "type": "clause", "offset": [1493, 1502]}, {"key": "to-maintain", "type": "clause", "offset": [1566, 1577]}, {"key": "in-addition", "type": "clause", "offset": [1706, 1717]}, {"key": "directly-attributable", "type": "definition", "offset": [1850, 1871]}, {"key": "the-approach", "type": "clause", "offset": [1907, 1919]}, {"key": "no-reason", "type": "clause", "offset": [1956, 1965]}, {"key": "under-review", "type": "definition", "offset": [2093, 2105]}, {"key": "does-not-meet", "type": "definition", "offset": [2106, 2119]}, {"key": "service-provider", "type": "definition", "offset": [2570, 2586]}, {"key": "market-share", "type": "clause", "offset": [2618, 2630]}, {"key": "this-chapter", "type": "definition", "offset": [2711, 2723]}, {"key": "references-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [2741, 2754]}, {"key": "court-of-justice", "type": "definition", "offset": [2780, 2796]}, {"key": "left-blank", "type": "clause", "offset": [3081, 3091]}], "samples": [{"hash": "3mnn9irmFiM", "uri": "/contracts/3mnn9irmFiM#case-law", "label": "Not Applicable", "score": 21.4202600958, "published": true}], "size": 1, "hash": "e7d922c57e7ff35eb1dede5082a10df9", "id": 3}, {"snippet": "In terms of procedure, a plaintiff may bring a federal antitrust case before a District Court. Such a plaintiff is usually a private party, but can also be one of the enforcement agencies of US federal antitrust law; namely the Federal Trade Commission (\u2018FTC\u2019) or the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (\u2018DoJ\u2019). A subsequent appeal is open to a Circuit Court. If granted certiorari, a further appeal is open to the US Supreme Court. The seminal US Supreme Court judgment in Grinnell has made clear that a claim based on Section 2 of the \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 Act requires evidence of \u2018the willful acquisition or maintenance of [monopoly] power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.\u20191175 Such an exercise of monopoly power involves \u2018specific intent\u20191176 to behave anti-\u00ad\u2010", "snippet_links": [{"key": "terms-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [3, 11]}, {"key": "district-court", "type": "definition", "offset": [79, 93]}, {"key": "enforcement-agencies", "type": "definition", "offset": [167, 187]}, {"key": "antitrust-law", "type": "definition", "offset": [202, 215]}, {"key": "federal-trade-commission", "type": "definition", "offset": [228, 252]}, {"key": "department-of-justice", "type": "definition", "offset": [294, 315]}, {"key": "circuit-court", "type": "clause", "offset": [358, 371]}, {"key": "further-appeal", "type": "clause", "offset": [398, 412]}, {"key": "supreme-court", "type": "clause", "offset": [431, 444]}, {"key": "court-judgment", "type": "definition", "offset": [469, 483]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "clause", "offset": [524, 532]}, {"key": "section-2", "type": "definition", "offset": [533, 542]}, {"key": "the-\u2587", "type": "clause", "offset": [546, 551]}, {"key": "evidence-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [571, 582]}, {"key": "maintenance-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [611, 625]}, {"key": "exercise-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [779, 790]}], "samples": [{"hash": "3mnn9irmFiM", "uri": "/contracts/3mnn9irmFiM#case-law", "label": "Not Applicable", "score": 21.4202600958, "published": true}], "size": 1, "hash": "300342778e6480ce8389928dcbba2fcd", "id": 4}, {"snippet": "Centre for Child Care (Amicus Curiae) 2017 JDR 1841 (GP).", "snippet_links": [{"key": "for-child-care", "type": "clause", "offset": [7, 21]}, {"key": "amicus-curiae", "type": "clause", "offset": [23, 36]}], "samples": [{"hash": "jvthhvqYeRH", "uri": "/contracts/jvthhvqYeRH#case-law", "label": "Surrogacy Agreement", "score": 22.0636550308, "published": true}], "size": 1, "hash": "b86bcbf6e9aba6504bf206781f4d90b3", "id": 5}, {"snippet": "10. Counsel for the claimant advanced several authorities for consideration in arriving at an appropriate award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and recommended as reasonable compensation in the instant case the sum of $230,000.00: \uf0b7 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 Ansola v \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 and the Great Northern Insurance Co Ltd2 \u2013 where a 46 year old plaintiff who was a passenger in a vehicle sustained a severe comminuted compound fracture of the right lower tibia and fibula, a right talar dislocation and a right shoulder dislocation. There was a diminished range of motion of his right ankle and he complained of severe pain in the right ankle and pain in the right tibia and fibula. He was unable to stand for long periods and had to use a stick to move around because of his injuries. Operation of the right ankle was advised as a requirement to correct these problems and relieve pain. Permanent partial disability was assessed at 30% which could be reduced by 10% if surgery is performed. He was awarded general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of $150,000.00 and for future surgery $60,000.00 which was unchanged on appeal. \uf0b7 Caribbean Molasses Company Trinidad Ltd v Ganace3 \u2013 where a plaintiff/taxi driver suffered a compound comminuted fracture of the right tibia and fibula and a fracture of the right femur. A pin was inserted in the tibia and a rod in the bones and he developed an infection of the wound, which subsequently subsided. His knee movement was restricted from 1800 to 1600 and movement was severely limited. His ankle joint was stiff and he could not drive and had to walk with crutches. The Court of Appeal increased the award for general damages from $40,000.00 to $126,000.00 of which $96,000.00 represented loss of prospective earnings and $30,000.00 damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. This figure was adjusted in December, 2010 to $195,959.00. Of note is that this case is of some vintage so cautious reliance was placed on it in conducting the comparative assessment.", "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-claimant", "type": "clause", "offset": [16, 28]}, {"key": "an-appropriate", "type": "clause", "offset": [91, 105]}, {"key": "loss-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [139, 146]}, {"key": "reasonable-compensation", "type": "definition", "offset": [176, 199]}, {"key": "sum-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [224, 230]}, {"key": "great-northern", "type": "definition", "offset": [306, 320]}, {"key": "insurance-co", "type": "clause", "offset": [321, 333]}, {"key": "compound-fracture", "type": "definition", "offset": [434, 451]}, {"key": "the-right", "type": "clause", "offset": [455, 464]}, {"key": "range-of-motion", "type": "definition", "offset": [572, 587]}, {"key": "severe-pain", "type": "definition", "offset": [628, 639]}, {"key": "operation-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [802, 818]}, {"key": "permanent-partial-disability", "type": "definition", "offset": [904, 932]}, {"key": "general-damages", "type": "definition", "offset": [1023, 1038]}, {"key": "the-court-of-appeal", "type": "clause", "offset": [1647, 1666]}, {"key": "the-award", "type": "clause", "offset": [1677, 1686]}], "samples": [{"hash": "eNiWaOgbqYs", "uri": "/contracts/eNiWaOgbqYs#case-law", "label": "Personal Injury Claim", "score": 18.8685831622, "published": true}], "size": 1, "hash": "ec27e80897379ebbead50c0955936a85", "id": 6}, {"snippet": "\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 v. Canada (Attorney General) [2002] 2 SCR 764 \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587 v. Canada (Attorney General) [2004] SCC 33", "snippet_links": [{"key": "attorney-general", "type": "clause", "offset": [18, 34]}], "samples": [{"hash": "5LBv6DFBOWM", "uri": "/contracts/5LBv6DFBOWM#case-law", "label": "Compliance Agreements", "score": 21.0, "published": true}], "size": 1, "hash": "3d81bf5a02fab08ee9317d63e1e01beb", "id": 7}, {"snippet": "The determination of whether a transaction should be treated, for federal income tax purposes, as a sale or as a lease is governed by the intention of the parties and the legal effects and economics of their relationship. See, e.g., Oesterreich v. Commissioner, 226 F.2d 798, 55-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Paragraph 9733 (9th Cir. 1955); see also, M&W Gear Co. v. Commissioner, 446 F.2d 841, 71-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Paragraph 9555 (7th Cir. 1971); Hagg\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587. 8 KAYE, \u2587\u2587HO\u2587\u2587\u2587, \u2587\u2587ER\u2587\u2587\u2587, \u2587\u2587YS & \u2587ANDLER SC International Services, Inc. -5- September 20, 1995 Commissioner, 241 F.2d 288, 57-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Paragraph 9230 (9th Cir. 1956); Lest\u2587\u2587 \u2587. \u2587\u2587\u2587missioner, 32 T.C. 711 (1959); Bent\u2587\u2587 \u2587. \u2587\u2587\u2587missioner, 197 F.2d 745, 52-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Paragraph 9367 (5th Cir. 1952); Rev. Rul. 55-540, 1955-2 C.B. 39. In analyzing that relationship, the courts have considered a number of objective factors, focussing on the relationship between the economic terms of the obligations of the parties and the fair market values of the rights conveyed. Frito-Lay, Inc. v. United States, 209 F. Supp. 886, 62-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Paragraph 9809 at p. 86,256 (N.D. Ga. 1962). Factors indicating an intent to enter into a sale and purchase transaction include the following:\n1. Portions of the periodic payments are made specifically applicable to equity to be acquired by the lessee.\n2. The lessee will acquire title to the property upon payment of a stated amount of \"rentals\" that, under the contract, the lessee is required to make.\n3. The total amount that the lessee is required to pay for a relatively short period of use constitutes an inordinately large proportion of the total sum required to be paid to secure the transfer of title to the property.\n4. The agreed \"rental\" payments materially exceed the current fair rental value of the property. This may be indicative that the payments include an element other than compensation for the use of the property.\n5. The property may be acquired under a purchase option at a price that is nominal in relation to the value of the property at the time when the option may be exercised, as determined at the time of entering into 9 KAYE, \u2587\u2587HO\u2587\u2587\u2587, \u2587\u2587ERMAN, HAYS & \u2587ANDLER SC International Services, Inc. -6- September 20, 1995 the original agreement, or that is a relatively small amount when compared with the total payments that are required to be made under the lease and the option agreement.\n6. Some portion of the periodic payments is specifically designated as interest or is otherwise readily recognizable as the equivalent of interest. Universal Drilling Co., Inc. v. United States, 412 F. S\u2587\u2587\u2587. \u2587\u2587\u25871, at 1235, 76-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Paragraph 9230 (E.D. La. 1976). It is apparent from the case law that considerable emphasis is placed on a comparison of the purchase option price and the expected fair market value of the property at the time of the exercise of the purchase option; American Realty Trust v. United States, 498 F.2d 1194, 74-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Paragraph 9528 (4th Cir. 1974); Universal Drilling, supra, 412 F. S\u2587\u2587\u2587. \u2587\u2587 1237; M&W Gear Co., supra; Oesterreich, supra; Gem, Inc. v. United States, 192 F. Supp. 841, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Paragraph 9361 (N.D. Miss. 1961); Belz \u2587\u2587\u2587estment Co. v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1209 (1969); Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 836 (1962); Keel\u2587\u2587\u2587 \u2587. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1971-224, 30 T.C.M. (CCH) 954 (1971); Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1977-89, 36 T.C.M. (CCH) 383 (1977). In connection with this analysis, it should be noted that, although Caterair will be obligated to repay to SCIS an amount equal to a substantial portion of the projected value of the assets that Caterair will own at the end of the terms of the Lease and License, it is expected that such value will exceed the amount of the debt to SCIS by an amount that is at least equal to 10 percent of such projected value. Accordingly, Caterair will continue to have a stake in the value of its assets, because Sky Chefs and CII could choose not to exercise their purchase options, in which case Caterair would be left with any value of those assets in excess of the amount owed to SCIS. 10 KAYE, \u2587\u2587HO\u2587\u2587\u2587, \u2587\u2587ERMAN, HAYS & \u2587ANDLER SC International Services, Inc. - 7 - September 20, 1995 It has been represented to us, and we assume for purposes of this opinion, that the option prices under the Lease and the License reflect the parties' good faith estimate of the expected fair market values of the properties subject to those agreements at the time of exercise, that there is a significant possibility that the purchase options will not be exercised, and that the rent and royalty payments under the Lease and the License reflect the parties' good faith estimates of the fair market rental and royalty values for the properties subject to those agreements.", "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-determination-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [0, 20]}, {"key": "federal-income-tax-purposes", "type": "clause", "offset": [66, 93]}, {"key": "the-intention-of-the-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [134, 162]}, {"key": "legal-effects", "type": "definition", "offset": [171, 184]}, {"key": "international-services", "type": "definition", "offset": [499, 521]}, {"key": "number-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [870, 879]}, {"key": "relationship-between-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [916, 940]}, {"key": "economic-terms", "type": "clause", "offset": [941, 955]}, {"key": "the-obligations-of-the-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [959, 989]}, {"key": "fair-market-values", "type": "clause", "offset": [998, 1016]}, {"key": "rights-conveyed", "type": "clause", "offset": [1024, 1039]}, {"key": "united-states", "type": "definition", "offset": [1060, 1073]}, {"key": "to-enter", "type": "definition", "offset": [1192, 1200]}, {"key": "purchase-transaction", "type": "definition", "offset": [1217, 1237]}, {"key": "periodic-payments", "type": "clause", "offset": [1280, 1297]}, {"key": "applicable-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [1320, 1333]}, {"key": "by-the-lessee", "type": "clause", "offset": [1356, 1369]}, {"key": "lessee-will", "type": "clause", "offset": [1378, 1389]}, {"key": "payment-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [1425, 1435]}, {"key": "stated-amount", "type": "definition", "offset": [1438, 1451]}, {"key": "the-contract", "type": "definition", "offset": [1477, 1489]}, {"key": "total-amount", "type": "definition", "offset": [1530, 1542]}, {"key": "pay-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [1574, 1581]}, {"key": "period-of-use", "type": "definition", "offset": [1601, 1614]}, {"key": "total-sum", "type": "definition", "offset": [1667, 1676]}, {"key": "to-secure", "type": "clause", "offset": [1697, 1706]}, {"key": "transfer-of-title-to-the-property", "type": "clause", "offset": [1711, 1744]}, {"key": "the-current", "type": "clause", "offset": [1796, 1807]}, {"key": "fair-rental-value", "type": "clause", "offset": [1808, 1825]}, {"key": "compensation-for-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1914, 1934]}, {"key": "use-of-the-property", "type": "clause", "offset": [1935, 1954]}, {"key": "a-purchase", "type": "definition", "offset": [1994, 2004]}, {"key": "in-relation-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [2039, 2053]}, {"key": "the-value", "type": "clause", "offset": [2054, 2063]}, {"key": "at-the-time", "type": "clause", "offset": [2080, 2091]}, {"key": "entering-into", "type": "clause", "offset": [2155, 2168]}, {"key": "the-original-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [2265, 2287]}, {"key": "small-amount", "type": "definition", "offset": [2313, 2325]}, {"key": "total-payments", "type": "definition", "offset": [2349, 2363]}, {"key": "the-option-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [2413, 2433]}, {"key": "the-equivalent-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [2555, 2572]}, {"key": "the-case", "type": "definition", "offset": [2735, 2743]}, {"key": "purchase-option-price", "type": "definition", "offset": [2808, 2829]}, {"key": "fair-market-value-of-the-property", "type": "clause", "offset": [2847, 2880]}, {"key": "time-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [2888, 2899]}, {"key": "exercise-of-the-purchase-option", "type": "clause", "offset": [2900, 2931]}, {"key": "realty-trust", "type": "definition", "offset": [2942, 2954]}, {"key": "acceptance-corp", "type": "clause", "offset": [3308, 3323]}, {"key": "in-connection-with", "type": "clause", "offset": [3521, 3539]}, {"key": "to-repay", "type": "clause", "offset": [3616, 3624]}, {"key": "substantial-portion", "type": "definition", "offset": [3654, 3673]}, {"key": "projected-value", "type": "definition", "offset": [3681, 3696]}, {"key": "the-assets", "type": "clause", "offset": [3700, 3710]}, {"key": "lease-and-license", "type": "clause", "offset": [3765, 3782]}, {"key": "debt-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [3845, 3852]}, {"key": "at-least-equal-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [3879, 3896]}, {"key": "sky-chefs", "type": "definition", "offset": [4021, 4030]}, {"key": "to-exercise", "type": "clause", "offset": [4056, 4067]}, {"key": "purchase-options", "type": "definition", "offset": [4074, 4090]}, {"key": "amount-owed", "type": "clause", "offset": [4177, 4188]}, {"key": "for-purposes-of-this", "type": "clause", "offset": [4342, 4362]}, {"key": "option-prices", "type": "clause", "offset": [4381, 4394]}, {"key": "the-license", "type": "definition", "offset": [4415, 4426]}, {"key": "the-properties", "type": "definition", "offset": [4506, 4520]}, {"key": "subject-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [4521, 4531]}, {"key": "time-of-exercise", "type": "definition", "offset": [4556, 4572]}, {"key": "payments-under-the-lease", "type": "clause", "offset": [4693, 4717]}, {"key": "good-faith-estimates", "type": "clause", "offset": [4755, 4775]}, {"key": "fair-market-rental", "type": "definition", "offset": [4783, 4801]}], "samples": [{"hash": "dzGHiZFg8ns", "uri": "/contracts/dzGHiZFg8ns#case-law", "label": "Supplemental Opinion Letter (Caterair International Inc /Ii/)", "score": 16.0, "published": true}], "size": 1, "hash": "891b2f78d0728a14a9603c82b351580d", "id": 8}, {"snippet": "Case law in Colorado is virtually non-existent with respect to cohabitation agreements; however, the Colorado Supreme Court as recognized the significance of these contracts.", "snippet_links": [{"key": "in-colorado", "type": "clause", "offset": [9, 20]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [47, 62]}, {"key": "cohabitation-agreements", "type": "clause", "offset": [63, 86]}, {"key": "supreme-court", "type": "clause", "offset": [110, 123]}], "samples": [{"hash": "bfIFjVvXYL8", "uri": "/contracts/bfIFjVvXYL8#case-law", "label": "Premarital and Marital Agreements", "score": 32.4252470335, "published": true}], "size": 1, "hash": "bc17a73f935650e4743b2166ec04b3c7", "id": 9}, {"snippet": "Many commentators continue to subscribe to the understanding of the law on the object criterion described here as the orthodox approach.32 Chapter 2 subjects the case law to a detailed critical legal analysis in order to determine more precisely the law on the object criterion. For the purposes of this chapter, however, this section provides a brief description of the case law that supports the orthodox approach in order to illustrate the European Courts\u2019 contribution to the development of the orthodox approach.33 The clearest embodiment of the orthodox approach is found in European Night Services (ENS).34 The influence of the GC\u2019s judgment in ENS on the legal interpretation of the object concept under Article 101(1) TFEU is profound and is consistently cited as authority for the proposition that the object concept operates 27 (\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, 2009), p5.", "snippet_links": [{"key": "to-subscribe", "type": "clause", "offset": [27, 39]}, {"key": "the-understanding", "type": "clause", "offset": [43, 60]}, {"key": "the-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [64, 71]}, {"key": "the-object", "type": "clause", "offset": [75, 85]}, {"key": "chapter-2", "type": "clause", "offset": [139, 148]}, {"key": "the-case", "type": "definition", "offset": [158, 166]}, {"key": "legal-analysis", "type": "clause", "offset": [194, 208]}, {"key": "to-determine", "type": "definition", "offset": [218, 230]}, {"key": "for-the-purposes-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [279, 298]}, {"key": "this-chapter", "type": "definition", "offset": [299, 311]}, {"key": "description-of-the", "type": "definition", "offset": [352, 370]}, {"key": "development-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [480, 498]}, {"key": "interpretation-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [669, 690]}, {"key": "under-article", "type": "definition", "offset": [706, 719]}], "samples": [{"hash": "635Qro4Tspr", "uri": "/contracts/635Qro4Tspr#case-law", "label": "Thesis Submission Agreement", "score": 22.2447962836, "published": true}], "size": 1, "hash": "41df8fcac764a6ba1791b38fda9d2a67", "id": 10}], "next_curs": "ClESS2oVc35sYXdpbnNpZGVyY29udHJhY3Rzci0LEhZDbGF1c2VTbmlwcGV0R3JvdXBfdjU2IhFjYXNlLWxhdyMwMDAwMDAwYQyiAQJlbhgAIAA=", "clause": {"title": "Case Law", "children": [["case-law-developed-prior-to-the-1999-montreal-convention", "Case Law Developed Prior to the 1999 Montreal Convention"], ["foreign-case-law", "Foreign Case Law"], ["\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587-996-p", "\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587, 996 P"], ["", ""], ["competition-bureau-guidance", "Competition Bureau guidance"]], "size": 16, "parents": [["autonomy", "Autonomy"], ["amendments", "Amendments"], ["case-law", "Case law"]], "id": "case-law", "related": [["applicable-state-law", "Applicable State Law", "Applicable State Law"], ["minimum-vendor-legal-requirements", "Minimum Vendor Legal Requirements", "Minimum Vendor Legal Requirements"], ["license-requirements", "License Requirements", "License Requirements"], ["general-requirement", "General Requirement", "General Requirement"], ["minimum-vendor-license-requirements", "Minimum Vendor License Requirements", "Minimum Vendor License Requirements"]], "related_snippets": [], "updated": "2025-07-07T12:37:53+00:00"}, "json": true, "cursor": ""}}