While I certainly see the anger in those that wasted big bucks with FindLaw, such a suit on these terms seems to be a no - win situation since the actual contract that the lawyers signed with FindLaw would govern, there are unlikely to be any such written «first page» assurances, and the verbal assurances (even if admissible given
the existence of a written contract) would likely differ from case to case.
Not exact matches
Written contracts can be particularly confusing, because a breach
of contract case may deal with both the
existence of the
contract and the information contained in it.
to appeal den., 95 N.Y. 2d 759)- where broker's original agreement was validly terminated prior to the
contract that led to the subject sale, any other agreement between the parties for the payment
of a brokerage commission would be governed by the Statute
of Frauds and the broker's claims are barred since the broker has not alleged, in connection with the alleged subsequent agreement, the
existence of some
writing evidencing defendant's intention to be bound; since alleged subsequent agreement is void by reason
of the Statute
of Frauds, broker can not use the same alleged promises as a basis for a cause
of action sounding in quantum meruit
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.