Sentences with phrase «defendant for breach of contract»

Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and breach of the warranty in the deed that the property owner was free from encumbrances.

Our experience has shown that these construction, utility line and fire cases expand beyond a plaintiff asserting a tort cause of action, to include claims among the defendants for breach of contract and indemnification.

Not exact matches

«For this reason, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants for breach of statutory duties, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, recovery of chattels and an accounting,» court documents staFor this reason, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants for breach of statutory duties, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, recovery of chattels and an accounting,» court documents stafor breach of statutory duties, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, recovery of chattels and an accounting,» court documents state.

Since tort damages are recoverable, the courts have attempted to carefully define the range of potential defendants in interference cases to ensure that the liability of the contracting parties is limited to damages available for breach of contract.

As in the instant case, the plaintiff there alleged that the individual defendant obtained certain trade secrets during his employment with plaintiff, then in breach of a confidentiality agreement that was part of his employment contract, misappropriated that information when he went to work for the defendant JPS.

She has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in cases on a wide variety of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, defamation, and civil liability for cyberstalking.

For example, instead of writing «Plaintiffs allege that defendant breached the contract,» or «The judge found that defendant violated the statute,» lawyers will bury the verbs allege and violated in abstract - noun phrases: «Plaintiffs make the allegation that defendant breached the contract,» and «The judge found that defendant was in violation of the statute.»

The Assessed Group [Group 2] may be satisfied with the quantum of the award made by the OLRB and the outcome that the Defendants are liable to pay that award as the damages for their negligence, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, or oppression remedy claim.»

A party is not entitled to enjoin the breach of a contract by another, unless he himself has performed what the contract requires of him so far as possible; if he himself is in default or has given cause for nonperformance by defendant, he has no standing in equity... Having committed the first breach, the general rule is that a material breach of the Agreement allows the non-breaching party to treat the breach as a discharge of his contract liability.

For example the defendants in my 12 November post who refused to pay $ 37 million dollars or anything like it for damages they believed did not exist, for a breach of contract which they deniFor example the defendants in my 12 November post who refused to pay $ 37 million dollars or anything like it for damages they believed did not exist, for a breach of contract which they denifor damages they believed did not exist, for a breach of contract which they denifor a breach of contract which they denied.

Prior to joining Williams Montgomery & John, he practiced for four years at another Chicago - based civil litigation firm where he represented real property developers, motor vehicle dealers, lending companies, food manufacturers and family owned businesses as both plaintiff and defendant in commercial litigation matters involving breach of contract, fraud and disputes under the Uniform Commercial Code, and defended his clients in consumer class action litigation.

[1] The appellant, who is a lawyer, brought an action in Small Claims Court against the defendant seeking damages in the amount of $ 14,933.22 for breach of contract.

Any discussion of «gains - based» recovery for breach of contract or tort has to deal with the practical problem that, while the plaintiff usually has access to the facts it needs to establish its loss, the defendant will have access to the facts needed to establish its gains.

Carriage of goods by air — Carrier claiming air freight from defendant — Defendant seeking to set off counterclaim for breach of contract of carriage — Whether common - law rule precluding set - off against freight extended to carriagdefendant — Defendant seeking to set off counterclaim for breach of contract of carriage — Whether common - law rule precluding set - off against freight extended to carriagDefendant seeking to set off counterclaim for breach of contract of carriage — Whether common - law rule precluding set - off against freight extended to carriage by air.

Broadly speaking, if you sue because of a breach of a contract, the defendant will usually be the person or business you contracted with (for example, the landlord who breached your lease).

Contract — Counterclaim for damages for repudiatory breach or renunciation — Contract terminated by defendant by reason of claimant going into administration — Whether claimant in repudiatory breach — Whether defendant could rely upon repudiation or renunciation where termination was not based on breach.

$ 85,000 Verdict in favor of steel fabricator Plaintiff in a breach of contract action against Defendant for failure to pay for steel used in the creation of a United Airlines Terminal vestibule at O'Hare Airport.

Elmotec Statomat, Inc. v. Visteon Corp., No. 07 - 13884 (E.D. Mich.): Counsel for defendant Visteon defending claims of breach of contract, correction of inventorship of several patents, and related claims concerning alternator technologies.

The arbitrator granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants, finding that: (1) CHSI was not a proper respondent to the action and that Weirton failed to state claims against CHSI; (2) all of Weirton's claims, except for the breach - of - contract claim against Quorum, were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel; (3) Weirton's breach - of - contract claim against Quorum was time - barred under the applicable Tennessee statute of limitations; (4) Weirton's tort claims were alternatively barred by the gist - of - the - action doctrine; and (5) Weirton's unjust enrichment claim was barred because of the parties» contracts (the «Second Award»).

At trial, the plaintiff presents the written contract as real evidence of the agreement she and the defendant made and that the defendant breached when he didn't have the cash for the plaintiff on September 20 as stated.

# 1,000,000 claim for breach of contract resulting from a failure to pay for goods supplied, the Defendant claiming that the goods were unfit for purpose.

Pool company sued for breach of contract, quantum meruit and other claims, and defendant Stein cross-complained.

Plaintiff search engine optimization firm sued defendant marketing firm for breach of contract, prompting defendant to countersue plaintiff (as a cross-defendant) for breach of contract and for a violation of Penal Code section 502 (a computer hacking claim which is given civil claim status through the statute).

In the Court's view, the general principle of compensation (i.e. that damages for breach of contract should put the plaintiff in the economic position that he or she would have been in had the defendant performed the contract) was not a full answer to the issue.

The Commercial Court held the contract to be an «on demand» guarantee and further held that the Defendant had failed, in breach of contract, to pay in response to certified demands for payment made by the Claimant exceeding US$ 3m.

Conducted witness preparation for depositions and trial and conducted general trial preparation in connection with lawsuit involving dispute over purchase of mineral interests; plaintiffs purported to seek relief against named defendant under theories of breach of oral contract to purchase mineral interest lease, estoppel, reliance, and fraud.

When the defendant pulled out of the deal, the plaintiff sued for breach of contract and specific performance.

But the burden which lies on the defendant of proving that the plaintiff has failed in his duty to mitigate is by no means a light one, for this is a case where a party already in breach of contract demands positive action from one who is often innocent of blame.

In aircraft manufacturer Airbus Americas» suit demanding indemnification for defendant Metron's alleged breaches of contract related to Airbus» acquisition of Metron Holdings in 2011, a Fairfax Circuit Court awards Airbus $ 9.4 million in damages.

Ronnie has experience of acting for claimants and defendants in a broad range of commercial disputes, including claims for breach of contract and directors» duties, economic torts, misuse of confidential information and breach of restrictive covenants.

(a) that the Claimants contracted with the Defendants to purchase package holidays at the Club Aguamar Hotel and stayed at the Club Aguamar Hotel between the dates set out in the schedule to the order, and (b) that the Claimants suffered gastric or other illness of various durations, and / or personal injury, and / or distress, inconvenience, loss and damage as a result of improper performance of the provision of services under the holiday contract, in respect of which the Claimants hold the Defendant liable (i) under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992, and / or (ii) by reason of breaches of the said contracts of various dates for the provision of holidays, made in writing, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, and / or (iii) by reason of the Defendant's negligence during the said period, and / or (iv) by reason of the Defendant's misrepresentations made on various dates and inducung the Claimants to enter the said contracts for the provision of holidays.

This formulation represents the traditional version of the tort which imposes liability upon a defendant for inducing breach by a plaintiff's promisor, such as when a defendant intentionally and without justification induces a plaintiff's employee to breach an employment contract and come to work for that defendant.

If the defendant would have had to spend $ 1,000,000 to make the tracking system more accurate and greater accuracy would only have increased the amounts due based upon unique users by $ 10,000, it would probably not breach their duty of good faith and fair dealing to refrain from purchasing this more expensive and more accurate tracking software, particularly if the defendant made a $ 10,000 allowance for the estimated number of omitted unique users as a result of using less accurate tracking software and increased compensation under the contract accordingly.

The plaintiffs then brought suit against the various defendants, asserting claims for, inter alia, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, negligence, negligence per se, and conversion.

It is common for a defendant to a breach of contract claim to raise an allegation that the contract was varied and all too easy to say there was a verbal conversation to change the terms.

Additionally, given that breach of contract is actionable without proof of damage (if only for nominal damages) a strong floodgates argument is likely to be deployed by defendants seeking to avoid liability.

Bowen is claiming damages of $ 25,000, including $ 7,000 for punitive damages, for breach of contract by the defendant and negligence...

In making the assessment of damages for breach of contract, the Supreme Court has effectively said that it is not a question of considering how the defendant would have actually conducted its business, and determining what method of actually carrying on its business would have been most profitable.

The court stated that «the purpose of awarding damages for breach of contract is neither to penalize the defendant nor merely to return to the plaintiff that which he has expended in reliance on the contract.

In November 2007, the defendant paid the lower rate of commission and within two years of that date the plaintiff sued for breach of contract.

Real Estate, Inc. (299 A.D. 2d 201)-- summary judgment dismissing complaint for breach of contract granted where agreement between plaintiff and defendant plainly provided that plaintiff is not entitled to 10 % of defendant's commission until defendant actually receives the commission and defendant presented undisputed evidence that it had not received a commission.

Curtis Properties Corp. v. Greif Companies (236 A.D. 2d 237)- cause of action in quantum merit reinstated (see, Curtis Properties Corp. v. Grief Companies [212 A.D. 2d 259]-RRB-; broker engaged as exclusive buyer's agent; broker may proceed both on breach of contract and quasi-contract theories where there is a bona fide dispute as to the existence of a contract or the contract does not cover the dispute in issue; quantum meruit recovery is proper where the defendant wrongfully has prevented the plaintiff's performance of a written agreement; broker negotiated lease terms for principal with a third party which principal used to negotiate their own lease terms with their current landlord.