On the other hand, sellers will sometimes apply for an anti-sandbagging provision, which is a promotional provision that prevents the buyer from being compensated for the violation of any warranty or guarantee that the buyer was aware of before entering into the velvet agreement or the conclusion of the transaction. A typical “anti-bagging” provision may be this: a brief revision of the status of the New York Law, one of the most important control laws in trade and trade agreements, is instructive. Under New York law, in the absence of explicit respect for the buyer`s rights, the question depends on whether the buyer believed he was buying “the promise of truth” from the guarantees in question. CBS Inc. v. Point-Davis Publishing Co. and. al3 established the general rule in New York, which was expanded and clarified in later cases. In the disputed agreement reached at Ziff-Davis, the seller guaranteed the accuracy of certain financial data that the purchaser had questioned after the signing of the agreement, but before the conclusion, on the basis of his own diligence. The seller said there was “no merit” for the buyer`s position, and the buyer agreed to “conclude a mutual understanding that the decision to conclude, and the closure, [would] not waive any rights or defences or [party].” 4After the closing, the buyer filed a complaint and argued that the seller had breached his guarantees as to the profitability of the acquired businesses. The court stated that the main issue was not “whether the buyer believed the truth of the information justified, as [the seller] would have it, but whether [it] believed that it was buying [the seller`s] promise in relation to its truth.” 5 In Case 5-Davis, the Tribunal found that the purchaser was buying businesses “which it considered to be of some value, the English Eurocopy plc/Teesdale case was traditionally regarded as an important warning to stock buyers who, while it is very difficult for one of them to assert a guarantee on this issue after the closing of the transaction, was seen as an important warning to stock buyers who, while it is very difficult for one of them, to assert a guarantee on this issue after the closing of the transaction, regardless of the provisions contained in the GSB in this regard.