Benedict College v. National Credit Systems, Inc. Defendant alleges that the plaintiff-college and defendant’s own sales representative entered into an addendum to the parties’ contract (1) that the sales rep was not authorized to sign and (2) that increased defendant’s potential liability. The defendant’s civil conspiracy counterclaim sufficiently alleges injury to defendant.

Tagged with: Contract

Insurance Products Marketing, Inc. v. Conseco Life Insurance Co. Despite a settlement agreement that severed the parties’ business ties, defendants have continued to use plaintiffs’ names on their business correspondence. By doing so, defendants may have been taking advantage of plaintiffs’ reputations or the value associated with their names.

Tagged with: Civil Practice Contract invasion of privacy Settlement Agreement Statute of Limitations Tort/Negligence

Brockman v. American Suzuki Motor Corp. Insofar as the S.C. Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors and Dealers Act applies to “any person”, plaintiffs are not required to show that they were defendant’s franchisee in order to have standing to sue under the Act.

Tagged with: Civil Practice Contract Standing

Southern Glass & Plastics Co. v. Kemper The defendant-insurer notified the plaintiff-auto glass replacement company of the insurer’s reimbursement rates and stated, “Performance of services irrevocably constitutes acceptance of the above price and billing instructions.” By proceeding with the work after receiving notice of the prices via phone conversation and fax, plaintiff accepted the prices.

Tagged with: Auto Insurance Contract

South Carolina Tel-Con, Inc. v. World Tower Co. S.C. substantive law applies to a contract dispute arising out of a Kentucky company’s alleged faulty design of telecommunication towers for an S.C. company to install in South Carolina.

Tagged with: Civil Practice Contract Statute of Limitations

Milliken & Co. v. Morin In an employment contract, a confidentiality agreement and an assignment of inventions do not restrain trade; therefore, they are not strictly construed against the employer. In this case, the confidentiality agreement and patent assignment are reasonable and enforceable.

Tagged with: Contract Intellectual Property Labor & Employment

Monster Daddy, LLC v. Monster Cable Products, Inc. The plaintiff-cleaning products company and defendant, a provider of audio and video products (including an electronics cleaning product), entered into a settlement agreement in 2007. The agreement granted plaintiff the right to extend its trademark into the natural zone of expansion for its various goods and services.

Tagged with: Contract Intellectual Property Settlement Agreement Trademark

Dutton v. Carolina Power & Light Co. Even though there is an express contract between the parties – an easement – since plaintiff contends that defendant is using the easement for purposes not covered by the easement, plaintiff has made out a claim for unjust enrichment. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied.

Tagged with: Contract Easements Public Utilities Real Property Unjust Enrichment

Waterford Investment Services Inc. v. Bosco Although a financial advisor who allegedly operated Ponzi schemes had changed brokers before plaintiff investors filed their FINRA arbitration claim, the current broker must arbitrate the claim because the advisor was an “associated person,” the 4th Circuit says.

Tagged with: Arbitration Contract

U.S. ex rel. Jon H. Oberg v. Kentucky Higher Educ. Student Loan Corp. A district court did not use the correct test when analyzing whether student loan corporations formed by four different states may be sued in a qui tam action alleging they defrauded the U.S. Department of Education; the 4th Circuit vacates a lower court’s dismissal of the suit on the ground that the corporations were “state agencies” not subject to suit under the False Claims Act, and remands for the district court to apply an “arm of the state” analysis.

Tagged with: Contract False Claims Act