Sentences with phrase «also negligent misrepresentation»

In addition to fraudulent misrepresentation, there is also negligent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation.

Not exact matches

A jury will also decide whether Manning and Steiner are liable of «negligent misrepresentation.»

In the New York suit, Sperone Westwater asked the judge to make a declaratory judgment that the archive has no moral rights claims and also seeks damages «for the Defendants» injuries to the gallery's business and reputation,» on counts of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and interference with business relations.

What happened here is that plaintiffs won a total of $ 588,000 on intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims and then also obtained fee awards of about $ 270,000 against a couple of the tortfeasors.

The applicants also seek a declaration that a promise made in writing by Mr. McGuinty on September 11, 2003, is a contract with the CTF and that Mr. McGuinty is in breach of this contract or, in the alternative, that this promise was a negligent misrepresentation.

The clause also contained language that stated contact damages were limited to direct damages only, excluding losses caused in any way by acts, omissions or misrepresentations (but excluding «any fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation» committed in connection with the agreement).

The plaintiff also claimed a longer notice period because the defendant, allegedly, had induced the plaintiff to leave secure employment by making fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations about the job security that the plaintiff would enjoy.

The jury also found in favor of the defendant on the fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claims, but awarded another $ 450,000 to plaintiff on his negligent misrepresentation claim and $ 10 million in punitives.

In this claim as well, the court held that the motion judge did not err in dismissing the claim for negligent misrepresentation, but also varied the order to permit an amendment of the pleadings.

The court also ruled that a claim for negligent misrepresentation had not been made as a causal link between the professor's promise to defer Jaffer's status and his damages claimed are not established in the pleadings.

The plaintiffs» request to certify common law claims for negligent misrepresentation was also rejected.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.

A jury found the sellers and the broker liable for negligent misrepresentation and fraud, and the broker was also liable for breach of fiduciary duty.

In addition to suing the real estate entities and individuals involved in the transaction and the seller of the property, the business owners also brought suit against the appraiser for negligent misrepresentation.

The Nunezes also charged the licensees with negligent misrepresentation, alleging that one of the sales associates had told them it was «a waste of time» to have the property inspected since the sellers had no plans to put money into the property.

The Supreme Court of Alabama has ruled on when an appraiser can be liable to third parties for a negligent misrepresentation made in his appraisal report and also whether a real estate licensee representing the seller has a duty to disclose to the buyer that the owner of the licensee's brokerage has an ownership interest in the property being sold.

Also because buyers tend to think of you as an expert — even though you aren't legally expected to have special knowledge about mold and, therefore, shouldn't offer opinions on mold's potential risk — you could be sued for negligence or negligent misrepresentation.

The Buyer brought a lawsuit against the Sellers, and the trial court ruled that the Sellers were guilty of negligent misrepresentation and also ruled that the Buyer had suffered $ 25,000 in damages.