South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Plaintiff alleges that (1) she blew the whistle on defendants’ scheme to defraud Medicare and Tricare, (2) defendants settled plaintiff’s (and the U.S. government’s) claim under the False Claims Act without intending to carry out the terms of the settlement, ...

Where a public authority’s obligation to repay bonds was conditioned of its receipt of rent from the city, and the city’s payment of that rent was conditioned on the appropriation of funds that were not, ultimately, appropriated, neither the city ...

Tagged with: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals contract law

The defendant-attorney’s communications with plaintiffs were insufficient to show the formation of a partnership; however, an ambiguous “letter of intent” may, with parol evidence, lead to a finding of breach of contract. The court denies plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss defendant’s ...

Defendant, the first developer of the residential development at issue, was found partially responsible for the damages caused by construction defects. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict motion based on the statute ...

Tagged with: Construction Defects Contract Statute of Limitations

Defendants assumed responsibility for completing construction of plaintiff’s residential development. Defendants noted existing water leak damage and attempted repairs. However, several years later, homeowners began reporting water intrusion during heavy rains. Plaintiff filed suit against defendants and the original construction ...

Tagged with: Construction Defects

Plaintiff subcontracted the construction of a swimming pool to defendant. The parties’ contract included an arbitration clause and stated that it was governed by North Carolina law. After plaintiff terminated the contract, it filed a demand for arbitration, seeking damages ...

Tagged with: Termination

Defendants’ “Senior Scientist” apparently knew by 2007 that plaintiff was selling or licensing polymers that were subject to the parties’ contract. Nevertheless, defendants contend that no one in management had such knowledge, so it is a jury question whether the ...

Tagged with: Civil Practice

Defendants’ expert opined that defendants lost the opportunity to sell their business for $60 million because plaintiff filed this lawsuit; therefore, the $60 million in damages are not attributable to any unfair trade practice by plaintiff. The court grants plaintiff’s ...

Tagged with: Damages

Where the covenant not compete in question was part of the sale of a business, and where the buyer reasonably anticipated expanding the geographical footprint of the business, the fact that the seller’s business operated mainly in Richland and Lexington ...

Tagged with: non-compete

In its claims against the third-party defendant-subcontractor for negligence, gross negligence, breach of warranty, breach of contract and strict liability, the defendant/third-party plaintiff-general contractor has not identified any damages that arose separate from plaintiff’s claims against the general contractor. Under ...

Tagged with: equitable indemnity