Byrd v. Livingston This lawsuit arose after the defendant-seller granted an easement to defendant TIAA Timberlands, II, LLC around the same time she sold the land at issue to the plaintiff-buyer. After mediation, the parties entered into an “agreement in principle” which relocated the easement “express grant superseding and canceling the 66’ grant, son’s parcel included.”
Leventis v. AT&T Advertising Solutions Where a lawyer signed a Yellow Pages ad order that said he had read and agreed to the Yellow Pages company’s additional terms and conditions – which included a forum selection clause naming Georgia as the venue for contract disputes – the lawyer is bound by the forum selection clause.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.
Shirvinski v. U.S. Coast Guard Plaintiff sub-subcontractor on defendant Coast Guard’s Deepwater Acquisition Project cannot sue the Coast Guard for defamation and related tort claims for alleged injuries from termination of its at-will consulting agreement and removal of its name from a list of government contractors; the 4th Circuit says permitting these claims to go forward would reward artful pleading and impermissibly constitutionalize state tort law, and it affirms summary judgment for defendants.
Burton v. Chrysler Group LLC Plaintiffs allege that the exhaust systems on their Dodge Ram trucks fail to effectively rid themselves of diesel particulates, causing soot to accumulate in various parts, leading to malfunctions and necessitating repairs. Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state breach of warranty claims.
Medical University Hospital Authority v. Oceana Resorts, LLC The defendant-employer’s group benefit plan prohibited a patient/plan participant from assigning his plan benefits to the plaintiff-hospital. Although the hospital had the patient sign a consent form, the consent form only applies to insurance policies, and the plan is not an insurance policy. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, Inc. v. Preferred Fire Protection, LLC Before it finished providing materials for the defendant-owner’s improvement project, the plaintiff-supplier sent the owner a notice that it was providing such materials. However, the notice did not include an end-date, a final value of materials furnished, or a demand for payment. Therefore, no lien attached to the owner’s property.
Hennes v. Shaw Where the complaint alleged and the parties presented evidence on a claim of breach of contract, the trial court erred when it sua sponte instructed the jury on conversion. We affirm the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict for plaintiff on defendant’s unfair trade practices claim. We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. However, we reverse and remand for a new trial on plaintiff’s claim of breach of contract and defendant’s counterclaims of tortious interference with contract, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.
Tetra Tech EX/Tesoro Joint Venture v. Sam Temples Masonry, Inc. The plaintiff-general contractor made payments to the defendant-mason for work which closer inspection might have shown to be defective. This was not a material variation from the compensation provisions of the subcontract. Neither could any failure to inspect the mason’s work constitute a failure to satisfy a duty owed to the mason. Any inadequacy in the general contractor’s inspections did not constitute a failure of a condition precedent to performance of the mason’s bond.
BP Products North America Inc. v. Stanley The 4th Circuit reverses summary judgment for defendant service-station operator in plaintiff fuel distributor’s suit to enforce a restrictive covenant that was part of a Purchase Sale Agreement and deed and prohibited the service-station operator from selling non-BP branded products or offering certain automotive services; in a 2-1 split, the panel majority says Virginia courts apply a different test to allow broader restrictions for noncompetes in purchase agreements, but a dissent says Virginia won’t allow “blue-penciling” the contract.
Kraft Real Estate Investments, LLC v. HomeAway.com, Inc. Plaintiffs allege breach of contract based on the defendant-advertising websites’ listing of plaintiffs’ rental properties as being in Myrtle Beach when the properties are in fact in North Myrtle Beach. Most of plaintiffs’ claims are rejected based on disclaimers and limitations of liability in the “terms and conditions” to which plaintiffs agreed when placing their advertisements.
Next Page »
