381. The alleged triggering event was a transfer of corporate shares in exchange for shares in another corporation, but there was no transfer of corporate ownership to outsiders. The court concluded that the meaning of “sale” in the agreement was ambiguous because it was uncertain “whether the actual control of the shares must be transferred,” and therefore “remand[ed] for a jury to consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether the parties intended that the shares needed to change control in a real sense before [the plaintiff’s] rights under the agreement would be triggered.” Id. at 382. Other courts have held that a sale or conveyance may require a real change of ownership or control as well as consideration. See, e.g., NSK, Ltd. v. United States, 115 F.3d 965, 975 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>); Mandell v. Gavin, 816 A.2d 619, 625 (Conn.
holding that both tria  201 and fsia  1610g require plaintiffs to prove some terrorist state ownership in order to attach and execute on property and finding that ownership interest through federal interstitial rule making holding an implied dedication gives rise to a servitude of public use and does not transfer ownership holding that a contract without a minimum quantity term is unenforceable for lack of consideration and mutuality holding that term sold requires both a transfer of ownership to an unrelated party and consideration holding that term court encompasses trial by both judge and jury