Baxter Of California Where To Buy

A: All orders shipped from Baxterofcalifornia.com will be subject to sales tax, applicable in accordance with the tax code of the state and city to which the order will be shipped. Tax is estimated at the time an order is placed and a final calculation of the actual sales tax will be reflected on your order confirmation e-mail and packing slip.

A: You can also log in to your account on baxterofcalifornia.com and visit Customer Service > Manage Auto-Replenishment. Or, refer to any email about a recent Auto-Replenishment order and click on the email links to access your Auto Replenishment orders.

For some time prior to May 15, 1938, defendants and appellants owned a soda bottling works at 808 R Street in Fresno. Immediately to the rear of the bottling works but facing on S Street at No. 817 was erected a garage or storehouse which was used in storing empty bottles and cases. The business was operated under the name of Ideal Bottling Works. About three months prior to May 15, 1938, respondent commenced negotiations with appellants for the purchase of the business. In furtherance of these negotiations, on May 20, 1938, there was brought to John K. Baxter a document called an option to buy the Ideal Bottling Works. It was signed by Baxter and Fred E. Diel, and provided generally that Baxter give Diel an option \"on all of my equipment, good will and business, as now established and operating at 808 R Street, Fresno ... until June 1, 1938, for $13,000.\" The price included all \"furniture, fixtures, equipment of every nature and description, as now being used in connection with the above business, including bottles, cases, stock on hand, syrups, soda water, labels, labeling machines, ... and any and all other merchandise or furniture, fixtures [58 Cal. App. 2d 385] and equipment used but not specifically mentioned.\" Below the date line appears the notation: \"All 7 & 8 oz. discarded bottles are not in this deal.\" On June 2, 1938, the parties signed an agreement of sale whereby respondent agreed to purchase from the Baxters \"all that personal property now being located at 808 R Street ... the same being particularly described in Exhibit A ... hereto annexed and made a part and portion hereof,\" for $13,000, payable as follows: $3,000 down and $1,000 per year thereafter. Right of possession was given as of June 8, 1938. It was provided that \"none of the personal property shall be removed from said place of business except for the purpose of carrying on the business.\" It then set forth the rights of the respective parties in case of default in payment, and for a bill of sale of the property if all payments were made, and provided that if the Baxters were called upon to defend any action to protect any of their rights under the agreement, a reasonable attorney's fee should be paid to the prevailing party. Exhibit A, attached to the agreement, listed the property included in the above contract of sale and, so far as material here, included \"all soft drink cases and bottles marked with the brand 'Ideal Bottling Works' and all cases and bottles of every other kind and character now being the property of the parties of the first part (defendants) ... one Cleveland Union Soaker, completely installed ... approximately 3,500 cases with bottles ... all bottles containing 'Ideal' name including 6 1/2 Hexagon 'Ideal' bottles and 9 oz. 'Ideal' bottles ... All 6 1/2 splits, the 12 oz. plain glass bottles, there being approximately 500 cases thereof ... All Moxie bottles and cases, approximate number being 600.\" (Italics ours.)

The respondent then testified that he consented to pay the additional $1,000 if the new soaker would be installed, which was to be about June 1st. The evidence discloses that it arrived at the plant about June 3rd or 4th, and it further shows that the Baxters, at that time, delivered to the firm in Los Angeles where they purchased the soaker, at least 2,000 cases of bottles at 30 cents per case and 1,000 cases at 20 cents, which bottles were in storage in the garage at 817 S Street. Appellants claim that these particular bottles were not included in the sale and were their bottles at that time. Respondent maintains an opposite claim, and upon discovery of the fact that Baxter had sold these particular bottles, he brought this suit for damages in the sum of $1600. The jury returned a verdict in the sum of $1150. This appeal followed.

[6] The next complaint involves an instruction on the measure of damages. Respondent requested and the court gave an instruction that if \"your verdict is for the plaintiff you may [58 Cal. App. 2d 389] award such damages within the amount claimed by the plaintiff as, in your opinion, will, under the circumstances of the case, justly compensate the plaintiff for his pecuniary damages, which shall be in a sum equal to the price for which plaintiff might have bought an equivalent number of cases and bottles, which the defendants may have failed to deliver to plaintiff under said contract, in the market nearest to the place where the property ought to have been put into the possession of the plaintiff, and at such time after the breach of duty upon which plaintiff's right of damages is founded as would suffice, with reasonable diligence, for him to make such a purchase.\"

Without the requirement of control, the right of a trademark owner to license his mark separately from the business in connection with which it has been used would create the danger that products bearing the same trademark might be of diverse qualities (citing cases). If the licensor is not compelled to take some reasonable steps to prevent misuses of his trademark in the hands of others the public will be deprived of its most effective protection against misleading uses of a trademark. The public is hardly in a position to uncover deceptive uses of a trademark before they occur and will be at best slow to detect them after they happen. Thus, unless the licensor exercises supervision and control over the operations of its licensees the risk that the public will be unwittingly deceived will be increased and this is precisely what the Act is in part designed to prevent. See Sen. Report No. 1333, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). Clearly, the only effective way to protect the public where a trademark is used by licensees is to place on the licensor the affirmative duty of policing in a reasonable manner the activities of his licensees. 267 F.2d at 367. 59ce067264

https://www.fkborek.cz/forum/general-discussions/download-kaspersky-6841-apk